This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
We are pleased to bring you a guest post from Payal Saraogi, on a recent decision of the Delhi High Court on Google’s use of trademarks as advertisement keywords. Payal has graduated from the School of Law, Christ University in 2020, and currently practices as a disputes lawyer. Confusion caused by Google’s keyword policy.
This case highlights the intersection of trademarklaw and e-commerce regulation, raising questions about the accountability of online marketplaces in protecting brand integrity. crore (USD 5 million) for the extra marketing and advertising costs that Plaintiffs incurred to repair its damaged reputation. crore (USD 33.78
Applying Section 34 on Prior Use Decided on a similar factual matrix in Syed Ghaziuddin v PepsiCo (2019), a Hyderabad court noted that while PepsiCo secured trademark registration for manufacturing soft drinks back in 1985, it did not initiate such activity until 2003. common law rights, the Court held in favor of Magfast Beverages here.
A very common way of marketing a product is to have it advertised and endorsed by celebrities that the public holds in good opinion. The concept of passing off under trademarkslaw was used to provide relief to the plaintiff. It is a common tort law aspect and can be used for unregistered trademarks.
“The first step in determining whether an unregistered mark or name is entitled to the protection of the trademarklaws is to categorize the name according to the nature of the term itself.” Showing your sales and advertising. Platinum Fin. 3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. ” Int’l Kennel Club of Chi., ” Id.
In the author’s personal opinion, Trademarklaw when implemented and enforced effectively can play a crucial role in the protection of personality rights of celebrities and to target the prevention of deepfakes and unauthorized use of an individual’s identity or likeness by third parties.
The current statute provides protection of these celebrity rights under trademarklaw, copyright law as well as passing off action for infringing the said rights. Celebrities usually charge a license fee for the use of their name, image or other attributes in advertising and merchandising. under the trademarklaws.
In essence, reverse confusion can occur when “the junior user’s advertising and promotion so swamps the senior user’s reputation in the market that customers are likely to be confused into thinking that the senior user’s good are those of the junior user.”. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 3d 432, 445 (3d Cir.
In an effort to connect with a younger, tech-savvy consumer base, more and more firms are deciding to debut their products and advertise them electronically through the Metaverse. Information Technology Act of 2000, Section 10A.) It ought to function similarly to how online contracts are upheld.
The trademarklaw firmly establishes that a trademark owner reserves the exclusive right to use the trademark and enforce the same. Section 142 of the Act categorizes threats as circulars, advertisements or other similar means served on the other party.
316 US 203] “the protection to trademark is the law’s recognition of the psychological functions of the symbols”. Mr. Jacob Jacoby in his article, “The Psychological Foundations of TrademarkLaw: Secondary Meaning, Generism, Fame, Confusion, Dilution.” The Trademark Reporter, Vol. 5 September-October, 2000].”
Mountain Valley Springs, the plaintiff, has been marketing its products under the trademark (TM) “Forest Essentials” since 2000, claiming extensive reputation and goodwill, especially for their Ayurvedic products, including a baby care segment launched in 2006. Case Overview: What were The Parties even Fighting for?
In that case, Google was using the plaintiff’s (Bharatmatrimony) trademark for advertising the websites of other matrimonial sites. Unlike UDRP, it is governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and hence, binding in the court of law 8. vs Cyberbooth AIR 2000 Bom 27 People Interactive (India) Pvt.
This is a major ruling validating the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising, which occurs when an advertiser purchases and displays ads triggered in response to third-party trademarks. Recently, the “ Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising.”
2000 SCC 66 at para. TrademarkLaw. Parody in Trademarks is No Joke. In Subway IP LLC v Budway, Cannabis & Wellness Store , the Federal Court reaffirmed that parody is not a defence against trademark violation. Currently, under Quebec’s French-language laws, both registered and unregistered (i.e.,
23-2000 (1 st Cir. A second sign advertises Miss Lizzies as The Most Haunted Coffee Shop in the World! The parties also rely on different forms of advertising, and a sign on Miss Lizzies storefront explicitly disclaimed any relationship with the neighboring Lizzie Borden House. US Ghost Adventures, LLC v.
The integrity of trademarklaw is seriously threatened by such exploitative strategies, which emphasises the necessity of court action to defend and preserve the rights of rightful trademark owners. A study of Indian and US TrademarkLaw relating to the effect of ‘Non-Use’of a trademark. [3]
Indeed, the PTO has increased its focus on whether the use an applicant is making is trademark use, as opposed to ornamental or informational use, in its registration decisions. Professor Alexandra Roberts has written an excellent recent article on this, Trademark Failure to Function.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content