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
There has been quite a bit of debate around the registrability of GUIs under industrial design law in India. While the Designs Act, 2002, recognised protection for GUIs, the Indian Patents Office has been reluctant to grant registration to GUIs. In the case of UST Global (Singapore) Pte.
The suit concerned agreements dating back to 2001 between IPRS and ENIL regarding broadcasting music in certain cities. In this case, the Bombay High Court ruled that registration of copyright is not mandatory for obtaining relief in an infringement action. Durga Trading Corporation was clarified in this case. In Dhiraj Dewani v.
Recently, the Delhi High Court clarified that the distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) testing is a must before a plant variety registration application can be advertised by the Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority. Sungro”), which were sent for DUS testing but also advertised before the testing results came in.
Calcutta High Court clarifies that a civil court does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of registration granted under the Plant Varieties Act. an interim relief against Dabur’s Amla oil print advertisement. Case: Pan Seeds Pvt. Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Delhi High Court refuses Marico Ltd.
Background In 2001, McCain GmbH (the Intervener) successfully registered the following three-dimensional sign as an EUTM: Registration was obtained for goods in Class 29 (pre-cooked potato croquettes and products based on mashed potatoes frozen) of the Nice Classification.
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.
From PR newswire, apparently a still from the 2001 film registered trademark For the 2001 Documentary, Monbo “organize[d] a group of highly skilled dirt-bike riders” to participate in a scripted film “that would highlight the exploits of an ostentatious group of dirt-bike riders in Baltimore called 12 O’Clock Boyz.”
3] [Image Sources: Shutterstock] Starbucks vs. Charbucks: This long-running dispute from 2001 to 2013 over a small New Hampshire coffee roaster’s use of “Charbucks” for dark roast coffee, arguing that Starbucks had diluted its famous trademark, places a number of issues regarding trademark dilution and parody at the very centre of this case.
The Board rendered a split decision in this opposition to registration of the mark EVOGUE for a wide variety of consumer electronic devices and accessories, tossing out Opposer Advance Magazine's Section 2(d) claim but partly upholding its dilution claim, based on the registered mark VOGUE for, inter alia , magazines and mobile phone software.
Throughout the twentieth century, many newspapers, advertisements, magazines, textbooks, and other reference materials used the term “red gold” to describe the gold-copper combination. ” Plaintiff alleged that it has used the mark RED GOLD on watches since 1989.
were valid and infringed, but the latter wasn’t counterfeited; SMRI’s dilution victory was vacated, but not its victories on deceptive trade practices, ACPA, false advertising, and unfair competition. The Composite Design Mark registration specifically acknowledged that it made “no claim. the public about the STURGIS Registrations.”
“Distinctive” means that a mark has acquired “secondary meaning” through advertisement or through a high number of sales to the public. Is the Registration Certificate any different? 2001) (affirming on appeal that the “Ultimate” in “THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK” is descriptive).
Note: I’ve often told the story of how Epinions implemented COPPA in 2001. If true, 1M visitors is a *much* lower threshold than 1M account registrations. We searched for the under-13s (there were only a few dozen because the service really wasn’t built for minors) and kicked them off the site. Boy, were they pissed.
Trade names are described in Trademark Law 17/2001, of 7 December 01 ( Trademark Law ) and were also defined as a distinctive sign in the preceding law on trademarks. However, European regulations establish an additional requirement which is that use of the trade name in trade should not be confined to an exclusively local scope.
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. Court of Bari invalidates Italian PV registration for seedless grape variety ‘Sugarone’.
In that case, Google was using the plaintiff’s (Bharatmatrimony) trademark for advertising the websites of other matrimonial sites. Since domain names have a worldwide outreach, its registration is done by an international organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN/UDRP System.
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. product, advertisement or store) before using what we have in our memory to interpret and identify that object.
Background In July 2001, an EU trade mark application was filed for the word sign ‘Vita’ for certain Class 9 goods, and later registered in September 2005. Ownership of the registration was subsequently transferred to Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (the predecessor to Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd, ‘the applicant’).
The plaintiff has registered its “Social” trademark and states to have invested considerably in its advertisement from 2001-2023. First, it argued that the plaintiff concealed material information that the registration of its mark was removed for non renewal in 2010 and was renewed only in 2019.
” [1] The best part about a copyright is that its registration is typically inexpensive and straightforward. Copyright protects “original works of authorship” fixed in any tangible medium of expression, such as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” 159, 165 (1995) (quoting Inwood Labs., 844, 850 (1982)). [21]
1] The best part about a copyright is that its registration is typically inexpensive and straightforward. Copyright protects “original works of authorship” fixed in any tangible medium of expression, such as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” [1] 159, 165 (1995) (quoting Inwood Labs., 844, 850 (1982)). [21] 21] Nora Beverages, Inc.
Gleeson J stated that the circumstances and available evidence did no support an order by the court that the Disputed Numbers be transferred to Manly Cabs under section 90-15 of Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Both decisions also recognised that some value may subsist in telephone numbers as a result of their use.
2001), which itself carried on the notion described in Publications International, Limited, v. Interestingly, she lost by default —she never answered the opposition filed to her trademark registration request, despite having two chances. Head , 178 F. 2d 758, 764 (S.D. ” Belford, Clarke & Co. ” Id.
. § 1052(c) provides, in pertinent part, that the PTO must deny federal registration to a trademark if it “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular individual except by his written consent….”
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