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
Protection of trademarks is important for the following reasons: Preservation of brand identity Prevention of customer confusion Business investment protection Fair Competition Innovation in branding Famous infringement cases within the areas of intellectual property underline complex legal issues and stakes involved. Dongre and Ors.
On the occasion of the opening of a new store in NY, the well-known clothing brand created a collection of NFTs based on digital copies of works of famous artists such as Miró, Tàpies and Barceló, incorporating various outfits of the collection available at the store, to be displayed in the Decentraland Metaverse, at the coordinates 16.78
slime green (now ‘brat green’) in various means of advertising throughout the promotional campaign. The colour was also used in the official album cover, creating a clear connection with the artist’s advertised work and the inauguration of the era it signalled.
J-B has used unqualified “Made in USA” claims in its advertising. ITW advertises “the interchange between its products and the matching OEM manufacturer products” in its materials, sometimes including OEM interchanges for specific automotive brands in its package advertising. Epoxy: In J-B Weld Co., Gorilla Glue Co.,
on 9 June 2023 (Calcutta High Court) A division bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal against the District Judge order and clarified that a civil court does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of registration granted under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
The plaintiff first registered the mark in 2001, and currently holds valid registration until 2034. Further, the defendant was alleged to be a repeat offender, having previously copied the marks of other well-known brands such as Louis Vuitton. 63, Copyright Act.
Only a few days ago, news was shared online that energy drink brand Alani Nutrition sued Rise UP and an influencer for copyright infringement and false advertising due to the allegedly unauthorised reproduction of one of its advertising campaigns. Its right pocket has a small star-shaped embroidery with the brand's logo.
music synchronised in an advertisement) and adaptations (e.g. This is another sculpture from the Banality series: Koons used a photograph for an advert created for the French prêt-à-porter (ready to wear) brand Naf-Naf in 1988, that had been published in various women’s magazines such as “Elle” and “Marie Claire”.
Chetanbhai Shah & Ors (2001 case) and held that where a case of prima facie passing off is made out, the Court ought to grant an immediate ex-parte injunction. states that “The brand names serve as information ‘chunks’. product, advertisement or store) before using what we have in our memory to interpret and identify that object.
Essentially, consumers are motivated to make positive efforts—such as verifying brand authenticity or switching websites—only if they perceive a substantial benefit from doing so. 2001) where the Court considered the potential for initial confusion sufficient for infringement. This is akin to the US decision in Autozone, Inc.
Manu Bhaker’s Olympics Victory: Do Brands Violate Publicity Rights by Putting out Congratulatory Posts? It was also submitted that the advertisement of the plaintiff including their mark ‘RUMMYCIRCLE’ was changed to show ‘VRUMMY’ by the defendants. The petitioner proved prior use by placing documents on record since 2001.
Vivian Cheng focuses her practice on trademark and copyright litigation and also counsels clients on a broad range of issues relating to trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection and enforcement, unfair competition, and false advertising. Thomas in 2001. She received her J.D. Dr. Crystal Culhane focuses her practice on U.S.
The Disputed Numbers were associated with the Manly Cabs brand, with some featuring as part of the livery of Manly Cabs’ taxis. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant was not using the smartnumbers as names or brands. Both decisions also recognised that some value may subsist in telephone numbers as a result of their use.
§ 102(a); see also Pride Family Brands, Inc. Secondary meaning may be established when a manufacturer can show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself. [22] Turner Heritage Homes Inc., 3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir.
102(a); see also Pride Family Brands, Inc. Secondary meaning may be established when a manufacturer can show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself. [22] Turner Heritage Homes Inc., 3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. GFI , 193 F.3d
One of these brands that has popped up on the AmeriKat's Instagram are riding boots from Fairfox & Favor. It sells well-known and artisan brands through its retail premises, online store and mail-order catalogue and has an annual turnover of £30million. The footwear part of their business accounted for less than 20%.
In this scenario, we could be dealing with a case of illicit product placement and surreptitious advertising. Instead, the court found a ‘clear advertising purpose, with the risk of misleading consumers, subtly and unconsciously leading them to purchase Amantis products’. Article 129.1
Varsity Brands , 137 S.Ct. 2001), which itself carried on the notion described in Publications International, Limited, v. In 2022, the NFL branded the Thanksgiving games as the John Madden Thanksgiving Celebration, to honor the memory of head coach and broadcaster John Madden. [ Head , 178 F. 2d 758, 764 (S.D. ” Id.
The suit concerned agreements dating back to 2001 between IPRS and ENIL regarding broadcasting music in certain cities. The plaintiff was granted, through an agreement, an exclusive non-transferable, non-assignable license for selling, supplying, and distributing the defendant’s brands in domestic and international markets.
21] Under this test, Ginger Rogers and the estate of Fred Astaire could not prevent a filmmaker from using the title “Ginger and Fred” in a fictional film because the use was “clearly related to the content of the movie and is not a disguised advertisement for the sale of goods or services or a collateral commercial product.” [22]
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