SpicyIP

JUNE 13, 2024

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?

Branding 56

Branding Brands Branding Marketing 56

SpicyIP

DECEMBER 12, 2023

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.

Trademark 59

Trademark Branding Brands Branding 59

LexBlog IP

AUGUST 30, 2023

1) He made this request on grounds including trademark law and unfair competition law. The third defendant was licensed to produce and market the disputed foods and spices under its own name and at its own expense, paying a fixed fee to the plaintiff for each individual product sold.

Intellectual Property 52

Intellectual Property Moral Rights Related Rights Art 52

Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog

JANUARY 19, 2022

Despite no separate law on the protection of domain name, Indian courts have, over the years, given protection under the trademark law. The Respondent had registered their own domain name as www.siffynet.com and www.siffynet.net in 2001 and was providing a similar service. Hence, it gave the injunction. Descriptive Names.

Registration 52

Registration Trademark Cinema Business 52

SpicyIP

JANUARY 30, 2024

2001) and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59th report (2012) urged the Ministry of Health to put in place processes to prevent the use of names for drugs that are confusingly similar. The Supreme Court of India (in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,

Branding 116

Branding Branding Brands Social Media 116

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

MARCH 4, 2022

This provision of the federal trademark law 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 trademark law by preventing the unauthorized registration of a person’s name, signature, or image.

Registration 126

Registration Blogging Trademark Privacy 126

Patently-O

DECEMBER 12, 2021

4th 387, 404 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [18] Lemley, What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law , 58 Stan. 22] TRUMP TOO SMALL passes this test because it is commentary on TRUMP, not a disguised advertisement that is merely incidental to Donald Trump. 471, 500 (2003)). [16]

Registration 69

Registration Government Advertising Advertising 69