Remove 2002 Remove Advertising Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

5th Circuit holds that inquiries weigh less than lost sales but can still be evidence of actual confusion

43(B)log

Rex Exchange purchased a “REX” trademark with a 2002 priority from a company called Azavea that had registered the mark for the following use: “computer software for use in search and displaying real estate information on a global computer network.” It first expanded into Austin in 2018. Thus, the §32 claim failed as a matter of law.

article thumbnail

Advent of AI Voice Generation and Threat to Personality Rights

IP and Legal Filings

A very common way of marketing a product is to have it advertised and endorsed by celebrities that the public holds in good opinion. The aspect of ownership in this regard narrows the scope of the application of Copyright Act. 893 of 2002 (Del) (India). [2] References: [link] [link] [link] [1] CS (O.S.)

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 3 – March 9)

SpicyIP

PPL, claiming ownership over public performance rights via assignments from music labels, alleged infringement after its representatives discovered unlicensed use of its repertoire. Later, he discovered the trademark had expired since 2002 without prior notice, violating Rule 58(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

article thumbnail

The Culmination of a Saga: How the Delhi HC Resolved the Two-Decade Long ‘Lacoste v. Crocodile International’ Impasse

SpicyIP

Effectively, the Court has permanently restrained CIPL’s use of the mark through manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising the products on which it was affixed. The CEA, it was argued, allowed both the companies to use their respective crocodile logos in different global regions, including India.

article thumbnail

On Remand from the CAFC, TTAB Denies Petition for Cancellation of "NAKED" Registration for Condoms

The TTABlog

According to Section 2(d), Australian was required to show ownership of a mark "previously used in the United States. Nor did respondent have advertising material or seek FDA approval. He conducted clinical trials in 2000 and manufacturing began in 2002-2003. equally oxymoronic? - and not abandoned."

article thumbnail

Precedential No. 21: TTAB Upholds Fraud Claim Against Distributor of Massage Chairs Who Registered Manufacturer's Mark FUJIIRYOKI

The TTABlog

The Board found that Shen knew he was not the owner of the mark, that his false statement of ownership was material to the registration, and that he intended to deceive the USPTO. Although ACIGI did pay for most of the advertising, that is not surprising when the manufacturer "is based in Japan and has little experience with the U.S.

article thumbnail

The Choice Of Law Debate In Copyright Infringement

IP and Legal Filings

Since copyright in whatever form (even first ownership) is subject to the territoriality principle, many argue that lex loci protectionis is the appropriate course of action. [10] Since copyright is “universal”, some argue that the lex originis should be utilised to determine who owns works that have been plagiarised.