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
Previously, IPilogue reported that Australia has granted patent ownership to an AI inventor. While DABUS’ patent application is still developing in Canada, the recent reversal of the Australian decision will likely impact the future of patent ownership rights of AI. In Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation.,
Famous for its easily-recognizable design of breathable and water-friendly clogs, Crocs was founded in 2002 in the US by three college friends who enjoyed sailing. The US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent and Trial and Appeal Board, after three rejections, held that the Class Crocs clog design patent was valid in 2019.
Case Summaries Abbott Healthcare Private Limited vs Vinsac Pharma on 17 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court) Abbott Healthcare sued two defendants for trademark and copyright infringement, claiming they deceptively copied its well-known LIMCEE Vitamin C tablets by selling LIMEECEE with similar packaging. Read the post for more details.
on banking regulations and its observations on the use of trademark as collateral. patents, trademark and copyright. These records provide banks with a clear history of ownership of that land and thus assure them of the valid title of the borrower. Subbarava Setty & Anr.
.” This four-part miniseries of posts provides a birds-eye view of protections available in China for two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) design elements of products or packaging under trademark, copyright, design patent, and anti-unfair competition laws. Trademark (symbols, designs). Trademark (3D designs).
Daler Mehendi, a known singer and the plaintiff in the present case, had a registered trademark over the letters “DM” and established a business called “D.M. The concept of passing off under trademarks law was used to provide relief to the plaintiff. It is a common tort law aspect and can be used for unregistered trademarks.
Jithendra Prasad Singh v State of Assam, 2002. Under the Trademarks Act, 1999, the legislature has explicitly mentioned that offences under Section 103, 104, and 105 of the Trademark Act, which may extend upto three years are cognizable offences (under Section 115(3) ). High Court. Cognizable and Non-Bailable. Andhra Pradesh.
On August 14, the Delhi High Court passed the final judgment in a 23-year-old trademark dispute between Lacoste and Crocodile International. The detailed verdict, heavily punctuated with takeaways for IP observers and fashion enthusiasts alike, is one of the very few final judgements on trademark law passed this year.
Illyrian Import claimed to be the exclusive authorized distributor and brand agent of a company ("GKS") that continuously sold GJERGJ KASTRIOTI SKËNDERBEU and SKËNDERBEU brandy in the United States since 2002. Illyrian argued that its agreement with GKS gave it the power and authority to assert the trademark rights of GKS.
Here, I think we might be starting to see what a post-Abitron, post-JDI world could look like: courts may begin to reestablish distinctions between registered trademarks and unregistered matter protected by unfair competition law, based this time on statutory interpretation rather than conceptual categories.
the Ninth Circuit revived a trademark infringement case previously dismissed on grounds that the First Amendment shields “expressive” trademarks from Lanham Act liability unless plaintiff can show the mark (1) has no artistic relevance to the underlying work, or (2) explicitly misleads as to its source. [1]
Kretet also pointed to its ownership of a registration for a similar mark for non-medicated skin serums, but the Board was unimpressed. 90369855 (June 24, 2002) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. In re Krete LLC , Serial No.
In addition to VIP’s statements regarding ownership of the marks, VIP’s use of the mark on product hang tags directly opposite their registered SILLY SQUEAKERS logo also indicates use as a source identifier. Grimaldi , the Second Circuit established a threshold test for artistic works that incorporate third party trademarks. [1]
According to Section 2(d), Australian was required to show ownership of a mark "previously used in the United States. He conducted clinical trials in 2000 and manufacturing began in 2002-2003. equally oxymoronic? - and not abandoned." He developed his own formula for a lubricant, as well as special packaging.
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. The Board observed that, between a manufacturer and a distributor, the manufacturer is presumed to own the trademark that is applied to the goods.
ii] With India steadily coming to grips with concept of digital currency, it is bound to raise questions of ownership, legal protection and Intellectual Property law’s role in as it has been said ‘growth to the moon.’. India’s Crypto Saga. There is special act in place in India for the regulation of Cryptocurrency. Conclusion.
Laches barred both claims as to certain of the goods in light of Applicant Fashion Ele ctronics' ownership of an expired registration for EVOGUE for substantially the same goods. 2002) (“Dilution does not implicate any public interest against consumer deception because, by definition, it protects only a trademark owner’s private interest.”).
Intellectual Property such as patents, trademarks, brand value, copyright, etc have become foundational assets for several businesses, seeking greater importance and attention. Trademark as Collateral in the US. Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs security interests in trademarks.
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] From the perspective of other IPRs like Trademark, Patents, etc.
Llc vs Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of on 2 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court) Harley-Davidson LLC filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its trademarks and copyrights, particularly the ‘Eagle Logo/Device Mark’ used on footwear. Mars Incorporated vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors.
Whether you can file a trademark for an NFT depends on whether the NFT is part of a larger collection or series. If the collection sells specific goods and/or services, it may receive trademark protection. Can NFTs Receive Trademark/IP Protection? In fact, to date Yuga Labs LLC has filed at least 38 trademarks at the USPTO.
This article summarizes the top developments reported on our blog and in patents, trademarks, and copyright law in 2021. Copyright Ownership of Movies and Films in Canada: Who’s on First? Introducing the College of Patent Agents & Trademark Agents. Trademark Law. Parody in Trademarks is No Joke. David Vaver.
The “FoxMandal” name and “FM” emblem were created and registered by Mr. Som Mandal in the early months of 2002, and it wasn’t until the partners of Fox& Mandal, including his own father, sought for the registration in 2006 that it was denied by the Trademark Registry. Introduction. & Anr.
We’ve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so it’s a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyright law etc. The Court interpreted the clause on ownership of work made during a contract of service (Section 17(c)) to not apply in situations where there is a contract between equals.
In a decision passed on November 11, the Delhi High Court held that the Regional Director under the Companies Act has no jurisdiction to decide ownership of trademark. 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act can be exercised only at the application of the actual owner of the trademark. 4 (Panchhi Petha Pvt.
Weve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so its a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyright law etc. Singh Note: Later in the year, the Delhi High Court tightened the scope of the rights under well-known trademarks in Vans Inc. vs. FCB Garment Tex. See Surabhis post on this order.)
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