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
Frank Schechter which says that a common (Generic) name can be registered by anyone, but no one has the exclusive right to that trademark, For instance, the renowned brand Apple has its trademark registered under various classes but the word ‘apple’ diluted under class 29 of the food category.
This may include creating products with certain distinct features, such as a particular smell or a sound that is exclusive to the product and the brand. Thus, several companies have attempted to manufacture products implanted with a particular smell that is exclusive to the brand. Smell marks and Indian trademarklaws.
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.
MSCHF has frequently targeted major brands. 2d 410, 414-415 (SDNY 2002)) that the Supreme Court expressly used to “offer as one last example” of “a case with a striking resemblance” in which the Rogers test was cabined. Unlike the defendant in Jack Daniel’s , MSCHF, at least amongst its relevant consumers, has a valuable brand.
Can their names be officially protected under trademarklaws?At At first, it might seem a little confusing as Trademarks are like- ‘special signs’ that help us know where products or services come from. Trademarks must have a distinguishing capacity and must be ‘distinctive’ in itself. Jitender V. Jain and Anr.,
This decision thus raises questions about the scope of powers granted under the state’s excise laws and their intersection with trademarklaw. This unclear delineation of responsibility for determining similarity raises important questions about the consistency of such assessments under both excise and trademarklaws.
By establishing a brand name, a service provider in the hospitality industry can benefit from having many customers and build a good reputation. Here in this article, we shall shed light on the relationship between TrademarkLaw and the hospitality sector in India. The same is then safeguarded under trademarklaw.
The concept of passing off under trademarkslaw was used to provide relief to the plaintiff. The concept of passing-off under Trademarklaw can be applied if the person concerned is a well-known figure. It is a common tort law aspect and can be used for unregistered trademarks. 893 of 2002 (Del) (India). [2]
Crocodile International’ Impasse By Samridhi Chugh Marking the end of a protracted copyright and trademark battle, spanning nearly 23 years, the Delhi High Court in a recent landmark ruling permanently injuncted Singapore’s Crocodile International Pte. CIPL) from infringing the French brand Lacoste’s iconic “Crocodile” device.
Bournvita’s Sugar Rush Against ‘FoodPharmer’: An Unreasoned Injunction and a Clarification Without Clarity Recently, the DHC passed an interim injunction against the social media influencer ‘Food Pharmer,’ restraining him from disparaging Mondelez’s ‘Bournvita’ and ‘Tang’ branded products.
He was unmistakably aware of the nuances regarding colours in trademarklaw. Broadly speaking, trademarks are of two types: traditional and non-traditional. [1] Notwithstanding the essence of this finding, this is too narrow an interpretation of the true spirit of trademarklaw. 18] Deere & Company v.
SS Vape Brands, Inc. If that were the case, having a famous mark would entitle the owner to a right in gross, and that is against the principles of trademarklaw." The vape/smoke shops offer Opposer’s MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY beverages in coolers displaying third-party brand names (e.g., Monster Energy Company v.
But, as Nick March has said , there is no turning back as “the power of sound to build emotional connections between consumers to brands has become evident. The equity of an instantly recognisable – ideally catchy – sound that creates subconscious connections with a brand is immense.
I briefly mentioned Abitron here recently , but it deserves more attention in the context of defining the boundaries of US trademarklaws and just on the notion of defining words. Hetronic prevailed at trial to the tune of $114 million in damages, $90 million of which were awarded on the trademark claims. CCS Fitness, Inc.
If the property of a person can be protected, likewise, when a popular celebrity like Amitabh Bachchan faces possible harm regarding his brand, the same can be protected under his right to publicity. Through various case laws, the scope of publicity rights has been expanded by the Indian judiciary. Under this Act, Sec.
The Supreme Court of Canada last considered the definition of “inventor” in 2002, but has yet to consider whether it would include non-human entities. TrademarkLaw. Parody in Trademarks is No Joke. Only descriptive marks that have acquired a “secondary meaning” through use may warrant protection.
CCI , the Delhi High Court held that Chapter XVI of the Patents Act is a complete code in itself and overrides the Competition Act, 2002. Doing this was regarded as essential to avoid stifling local industry and balance global brand reputation with the interests of national enterprises and consumers. CCI and Monsanto v.
Trademark and branding roles in Business Strategy Due to fierce competition in India nowadays, having a brand is essential. Branding also refers to a company’s brand and its products’ identification, standards, and warranties. A trademark primarily serves as a legal indication.
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