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
Trademarks are very important business assets because they distinguish products and embody reputation. The judgment made budget retailers realize the price they must pay for imitating established brands and stressed the virtue of originality in design, even within the lower end of the market. [3] Dongre and Ors. V Whirlpool Co.
Another crucial change is abolishing the national regime of exhaustion of IP rights for certain goods and brands. The list includes such well-known brands as Apple, HP, Panasonic, Siemens, Tesla, and Volkswagen. The list includes such well-known brands as Apple, HP, Panasonic, Siemens, Tesla, and Volkswagen.
This is a pending trademark case involving the mark CLEAR that Dolce Vita uses on their shoes. Still, when I saw the brand name CLEAR as applied to footwear, I did not expect for the shoes to be transparent. . I remember the 1980s and gel-sandals; my internet search also reveals some beautiful translucent Crocs. Royal Appliance Mfg.
The suit concerned agreements dating back to 2001 between IPRS and ENIL regarding broadcasting music in certain cities. In this judgment, the Delhi High Court delved into the interpretation of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to disputes involving trademark licensing agreements.
To do this, food firms invest a lot of money in developing and promoting distinctive brands and are increasingly turning to intellectual property (IP) protection as a means of establishing or maintaining their leadership in the industry. The trademark of Coca-Cola is its most valuable asset. billion in 2001 to USD 120 billion now.
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. Jacob Jacoby in his article, “The Psychological Foundations of TrademarkLaw: Secondary Meaning, Generism, Fame, Confusion, Dilution.”
Generic terms are incapable of functioning as registrable trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Supplemental Register or on the Principal Register after having acquired secondary meaning. This protected designation was superseded by adoption of the Protected Designation of Origin (“PDO”) for GRUYÈRE in 2001.
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.
Generic terms are incapable of functioning as registrable trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Supplemental Register or on the Principal Register after having acquired secondary meaning. The European Union recognized the PDO in 2011 in an agreement between the European Union and Switzerland in 2011.
What if we tell you that there is a drug that is used for treating diabetes, but has a similar/ almost identical brand name as another drug used for treating a type of cancer. Eerily the issue of similar brand names for different drugs treating different ailments is pretty common in India. Surprising, isn’t it?
This provision of the federal trademarklaw known as the Lanham Act is codified in 15 USC 1052.) Sections 2(a) and 2(c) both protect an individual’s right of privacy and right of publicity in trademarklaw by preventing the unauthorized registration of a person’s name, signature, or image.
4th 387, 404 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [18] Lemley, What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from TrademarkLaw , 58 Stan. These various free speech defenses to the right of publicity have been criticized by scholars for providing an inadequate, misleading patchwork of First Amendment protections. [23]
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