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
Subodh Chachra Proprietor Of M/S Expose vs V2 Promoters Pvt Ltd on 3 March, 2025 (Delhi District Court) the plaintiff, owner of the trademark “X’POSE” for apparel, sued the defendant for infringing and passing off its brand name in the hospitality sector through “XPOSE LOUNGE.” Citing Jaisuryas Retail Ventures v.
CIPL) from infringing the French brand Lacoste’s iconic “Crocodile” device. A Prolonged Struggle for Device Supremacy Dating back to the early decades of the 20th century, with the cropping up of the two fashion brands, the dispute primarily revolved around the rights of the parties vested in the impugned mark.
Introduction The Indian fashion market is pegged at an impressive value of $50 billion, out of which 10% consists of international luxury brands. [1] It is here that the distinction between ‘design’ in the Designs Act and ‘artisticwork’ in the Copyright Act becomes relevant. Infringement Of IPR – Design or ArtisticWork?
However, this argument did not satisfy the Court, which on the contrary, specified that it was those characteristics that are specific to Lidl’s brand. Copyright The Court also established that Lidl’s mark was protected by copyright as an original artisticwork under Section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
It means the products created by the use of the human mind as well as some resultant inventions, literary works, original designs, and the identities of various trademarks or logos that serve as brands in the market. for new “lines and grains” of “Basmati” rice as a brand name while its headquarters located in Alvin, Texas.
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