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
We are pleased to bring you a guest post by Tahhira Somal, exploring existing frameworks of non-conventional trademarks, particularly those of smell marks, and assessing their role in the protection of certain traditional cultural expressions. One type of such non-traditional trademarks is a smell or scent mark. Image from here.
He was unmistakably aware of the nuances regarding colours in trademark law. Broadly speaking, trademarks are of two types: traditional and non-traditional. [1] 2] However, the quintessential reason for such distinction is due to a slightly elevated standard for the registration of non-traditional marks.
Three years after the 2020 amendments to the Geographical Indication Rules, 2002 , the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI) published the 2023 draft amendments on October 20, inviting objections and suggestions from the relevant stakeholders.
on banking regulations and its observations on the use of trademark as collateral. IP Financing in India – Part I: Perfection of Security and (Non) Registration of Copyright Bharat Harne Image from here The 161 st Report of Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Committee on Intellectual Property observed (paragraph 11.1)
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.
Introduction Trademarks are no longer confined to words, numbers, or devices. This is primarily because of the clash between the traditional concept of trademarks and the ever-growing need to find newer ways to differentiate one’s product and services from competitors. [1] 7] Is Braille a ‘Mark’ ?
Background Banksy’s graffiti artwork Laugh Now first appeared in Brighton, England, in 2002. On November 7, 2018, Pest Control, Banksy’s authentication body, filed an EU trademark claim on behalf of the artist for Laugh Now. Trademark law allows Banksy to remain anonymous and maintain his mysterious artistic persona.
Trade Mark Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) defines the term Trademark as “a mark which is capable of distinguishing a product or service of one person from those of others”. [1] The ‘Cycle’ trademark has been domestically and internationally used by the plaintiff since 1954 without anyone’s interruption.
The case revolved around SAP Se (Appellant) trying to furnish new evidence according to the Trademark Rules, 2002. It started trading in India in around 1992 under the mark “SAP” and applied for trademarkregistration in 1999.
The case involved the trademark “Solidare” (Trademark No. An Analysis of the Order Firstly, for context, a rectification application must be filed under Sections 47, 57, 68 , or 77 (as applicable) of the TM Act read with Rule 92 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002. 1574746 in Class 9). Fem Care Pharma Limited & Ors.
Trademark Classification. When you file for a trademark in India, an indispensable requirement is finding out the trademark classification of your goods or services under which you must file your brand. ” The system of trademark classification eases the process of registration of a trademark. .”
The EUIPO Board of Appeal has declared the validity of a trademark containing the well known work of the graffiti artist Banksy ‘ Laugh Now But One Day We’ll Be In Charge ’, having deemed that it was not registered in bad faith. It concludes that the trademark has distinctive character and is not descriptive.
The EUIPO Board of Appeal has declared the validity of a trademark containing the well known work of the graffiti artist Banksy ‘ Laugh Now But One Day We’ll Be In Charge ’, having deemed that it was not registered in bad faith. It concludes that the trademark has distinctive character and is not descriptive.
PepsiCo had registered the tagline “For the Bold” as a trademark in 2013 for its Doritos tortilla chips and used it extensively for promotions when it was launched in India in 2015. it filed for a trademark infringement and unfair advantage suit in the court against Parle Agro. For the Bold!”, For the Bold!” Antox India (P) Ltd.
They entered into a trademark war over the common starting syllable ‘THE’ as both the outlets deal with identical goods and services. THEOS’ acknowledged ‘THEOBROMA’ as the owner of the trademark and agreed to not use the mark ‘THEOBROMA’ in any manner.
There is no registration fee for any of the seminars. Disposafe Health & Life Ltd & Ors vs Rajiv Nath & Anr on 28 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court) Disposafe Health & Life Care sought an injunction against Hindustan Syringes for using the trademark DISPOSAFE , claiming prior use and risk of passing off.
Samridhi Chugh and Manya Gupta write about this order, explaining how the Court appears to have convoluted the issues surrounding the interplay between trademarks, disparagement, and free speech, rather than clarifying them. It involved the plaintiff’s registered trademark, “SUPREME”. The defendant did not appear in the suit.
Trademark in Qatar. The process of trademarkregistration in Qatar is governed by the Law no. 9 of 2002 pertaining to Trademarks, Commercial Indications, Trade Names, Geographical Indications, and Industrial Designs and Models. Power of Attorney (POA): A simple copy of the trademarkregistration certificate.
‘Twas a day in December, when all through the blog, we were writing ‘bout trademarks, as if in a fog. When, what to our wondering eyes should appear, but holiday trademarks, so lovely and dear. The PTO said, as it reviewed the files, we’ve got holiday trademarks, we’ve got ‘em in piles! 1871712).
Previously, three governmental bodies had the authority to protect and enforce intellectual property rights: The Ministry of Commerce and Industry for trademarks, the Ministry of Culture and Information for copyright, and King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology for patents. Trademark in Saudi Arabia. Geographic names.
The Delhi High Court also passed an important order refusing to set aside the order from the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Authority, revoking the registration of Pepsico’s FL 2027 potato variety. For instance, the Delhi High Court directed Oppo to deposit the royalty amount, in its high-profile SEP litigation with Nokia.
Suppose that you are a foreign applicant who either files a trademark application, opposition proceeding, or cancellation proceeding with the USPTO. In that case, San Antonio filed a proof of service in which it stated that it had served Jiaxing through the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The evolving landscape of the rules governing extensions of time at the evidence stage of opposition proceedings, particularly examining the transition from the Trade Marks Rules of 2002 (hereinafter “2002 Rules”) to the Trade Mark Rules 2017 (hereinafter “2017 Rules”) is a topic which has sparked significant debate recently.
The objective of the Singapore Treaty is to create a modern and dynamic international framework for the harmonization of administrative trademarkregistration procedures. The Singapore Treaty is applicable to all types of marks registrable under the law of a given Contracting Party. Image Source: IStock].
The inculcation of such features into products and services has snowballed into the rise of a separate class of trademarks known as ‘non-conventional trademarks’. Global and Indian laws concerning smell trademarks. Thus, Court decisions and the USPTO have time and again granted the registration of smell marks.
Apparently, Monster launched its MONSTER ENERGY® drink brand including its ® mark (the “Claw Icon”) in 2002. Apparently realizing the importance of its brand, Monster owns at least fourteen federal trademarkregistrations that include the Claw Icon in various classes of goods and services (the “Asserted Marks”). 1125(c).
Therefore, to protect your business in the hospitality industry, you must seek protection via Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) , specifically by registering your hotel or restaurant brand name and logo as trademarks. Here in this article, we shall shed light on the relationship between Trademark Law and the hospitality sector in India.
Regarding the IPR matters, Cambodia has issued the following legal documents: • Law concerning Marks, Trade Name and Acts of Unfair Competition dated January 8, 2002; • Law on Patents, Utility Model Certificates and Industrial Designs, in force since January 2003; • Law on Copyright and Related Right, in force since March 2003.
Section 9(1)(a) 1 of the Indian Trademark Act, 1999 mentions lack of distinctiveness in the mark as one of the grounds for refusing registration of the mark. However, in India, there are numerous family enterprises where personal names and surnames have been registered as trademark. Personal Names As Trademark.
The Second Circuit stayed MSCHF’s appeal of the district court’s ruling that the Wavy Baby infringed Vans’ trademarks pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniel’s v. 140 (2023), since that decision was expected to provide guidance to lower courts for resolving free speech defenses in trademark infringement cases. VIP Prods. ,
This decision thus raises questions about the scope of powers granted under the state’s excise laws and their intersection with trademark law. For clarity, it is important to know that Rule 9 of the MP Foreign Liquor Rules focuses on the registration of labels. But before we get to discussing this, a bit of a background.
.” 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).
In this opposition to registration of the mark MOUNTAIN GATEWAY COMMUNITY COLLEGE for educational services and various clothing items, Applicant Virginia Community College Systems moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to state sovereign immunity. Maritime Comm’n v. State Ports Auth.,
The NAKED condom case returned to the TTAB after a CAFC reversal [ TTABlogged here ] and the Supreme Court's denial of the registrant's petition for writ of certiorari (September 2021). He conducted clinical trials in 2000 and manufacturing began in 2002-2003. He developed his own formula for a lubricant, as well as special packaging.
Case Summaries Hmd Mobile India Private Limited vs Mr Rajan Aggarwal & Anr on 9 February, 2024 (Delhi HC) image from here The Plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for expunging the copyright registration against the Defendant.
(I am unaware of any reported comparison, but I did find the latter compared to a toilet flushing and have seen the former’s trademark suffer indignities at times too ). Every sound trademark seems not only to signify something but to raise a question or two as well. Hence, the title of this piece and the discussion below.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 3 Orders from the Patent Office and the Trademark Registry, in 1 day! Image from here The Delhi High Court has recently been remanding back a lot of unreasoned orders from the IP Offices rejecting a patent or trademark application. Case: Holyland Marketing Pvt. vs Vijay Pal Vineet Kumar And Co.
Trademark attorneys would be wise to become familiar with the CAFC's 2018 decision in Detroit Athletic [ TTABlogged here ]. Can registration of a mark cause confusion? - 2002); s ee also Detroit Athletic, 903 F.3d At the time, I called it "a primer on much of the law of Section 2(d) as applied by the TTAB." In re BeBella Inc.
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.
from seeking rectification of FCB Garment Tex’s “IVANS” trademark. Inter alia, Vans Inc backed its arguments for rectification with its recent recognition as a well known trademark. For a well-known trademark, range of protection extends to dissimilar goods and services as well. The respondent, FCB Garment Ltd.
The Board rendered a split decision in this opposition to registration of the mark EVOGUE for a wide variety of consumer electronic devices and accessories, tossing out Opposer Advance Magazine's Section 2(d) claim but partly upholding its dilution claim, based on the registered mark VOGUE for, inter alia , magazines and mobile phone software.
‘The Paris Convention’, adopted in March 1883 and revised in the years 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967, and 1979, comprehensively addresses “patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and geographical indications”. [1] Both treaties were established during diplomatic gatherings in Madrid, Spain.
He represents/ has represented clients in trademark disputes. The article analyses Sumitomo’s application and the requisites for registration of an olfactory mark. The draft trade mark manual goes to the extent of stating that smell marks do not meet the requirement for graphical representation and hence, it is not registrable.
Following long-standing precedent, the Board affirmed a refusal to register the proposed mark STRONGHOLDS & FOLLOWERS for "Role playing game equipment in the nature of game book manuals" on the ground that the mark is the title of a single work and therefore does not function as a trademark under Section 1, 2, and 45 of the Lanham Act.
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