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
“The first step in determining whether an unregistered mark or name is entitled to the protection of the trademarklaws is to categorize the name according to the nature of the term itself.” Showing how third parties refer to your mark on socialmedia, in articles, or in communications. Platinum Fin.
The trademark of Coca-Cola is its most valuable asset. The value of the Coca- Cola trademark has increased from USD 68.9 billion in 2001 to USD 120 billion now. [Image Sources : Shutterstock] The Coca-Cola firm is the best illustration of how much intellectual property rights (IPRs) might be worth.
2001) where the Court considered the potential for initial confusion sufficient for infringement. Underestimating the Persistent Relevance of Initial Confusion in Modern TrademarkLaw The Single Judge’s reasoning that initial confusion is transient and does not warrant protection seems misguided. Tandy Corp.,
The suit concerned agreements dating back to 2001 between IPRS and ENIL regarding broadcasting music in certain cities. Google argued that even when the keyword is a trademark, it is never used in a ‘trademark sense’, thereby the invisible use of trademarks, as keyword, failing to meet the threshold to constitute infringement.
Recently, oncologist Dr. Vincent Rajkumar expressed his shock on socialmedia over the fact that two different drugs, treating entirely different conditions, had identical brand names — ‘Linamac’. Image from here India’s Problem — Different Drugs, Identical Brand Names By Dinesh S. Thakur and Prashant Reddy T.
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