Remove 2001 Remove Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Zara vs. Boungiorno and the possibility (or not) of using third-party trademarks

Garrigues Blog

regarding the use of the ZARA trademark. We will examine the impact of the ruling in cases involving the use of third-party trademarks. Buongiorno was an internet and mobile telephone network provider that, in 2010, launched an advertising campaign for a paid subscription to a messaging service for receiving content via SMS.

article thumbnail

Cut! There’s a trademark there

Garrigues Blog

Trademarks displayed in audiovisual works can be a real headache if the associated legal aspects fail to be taken into account. Both Spanish and European trademark laws and case law have shed some light in this regard. However, there are still some grey areas clouding this issue. Supreme Court Judgment no.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Protection of Domain Name In the Indian Context

Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog

In that case, Google was using the plaintiff’s (Bharatmatrimony) trademark for advertising the websites of other matrimonial sites. Despite no separate law on the protection of domain name, Indian courts have, over the years, given protection under the trademark law. Hence, it gave the injunction.

article thumbnail

Time for the 12 O'Clock Boyz to go: court shuts down (c)/TM lawsuit against documentary & feature film about Baltimore bikers

43(B)log

Plaintiffs also alleged infringement of Monbo’s right of publicity, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Lanham Act and related Maryland trademark law. The 2001 Documentary “sold 50,000 copies in two weeks and revolutionized the Baltimore dirt-bike culture,” inspiring a sequel and plans to make a third film.

article thumbnail

Delhi High Court grants injunction against ‘dialmytrip’ in MakeMyTrip India Private Limited v. Dialmytrip Tech Private Limited

SpicyIP

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. But the facts pertaining to its market share indicate that the mark has achieved distinctiveness. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Laxmikant V.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

SpicyIP

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.

IP 136
article thumbnail

Initial Interest Confusion Clash: Forest Essentials Battles Baby Forest at the DHC

SpicyIP

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?