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
When The Pirate Bay first came online during the summer of 2003, its main point of access was thepiratebay.org. Since then the site has burnt through more than a dozen domains, trying to evade seizures or other legal threats. The torrent site eventually returned to the.org domain which remains the official home today.
[Image Sources: Shutterstock] Legal issue involved Recently, in a new ad campaign launched by ‘Domex’, a Hindustan Unilever brand. In this advertisement campaign Domex has openly compared itself to Reckitt Benckiser’s toilet cleaner brand ‘Harpic’.The HUL Domex’s ad take a dig at toilet cleaner brand Harpic, , HARPIC v.
[i] In principle, the Delhi High Court has recognized publicity rights in the case of ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises (2003). [ii] Merely put, it is an individual’s right to handle the commercial use of their name, image, individuality and personal brand. iv] The Copyrights Act, 1957. [v]
This popular case originated from a long-running legal dispute involving the Petitioner, Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. Lucky Brand), and the Respondent, Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. Lucky Brand claimed a defense against Marcel in the most recent case between the two, which it had not fully explored in a previous suit between them.
Non-conventional or Non-Traditional trademarks such as sounds, color, shape, scent or any other motion marks have emerged as a new innovative tools widely being used in the todays changing and competitive market era that redefine how brands connect with the public at large.
A recent trend in branding, however, is the use of non-traditional trademarks such as haptic markings. These markings play a crucial role in differentiating brands and improving the customer experience. In 2003, the firm’s trademark in Germany was protected due to its distinctive design. are two examples.
Simply put, trademark genericization is the death of the mark as it no longer acts as a source indicator of the brand owner. Sadly, targets of genericization are often successful brands whose goods were or are market leaders in their sector. Another way is to use the brand as an adjective with the generic term. .’
While its first registration for the brand name in India (1979) was under Class 16 [Paper & Paper Products] , the trademark was registered w.r.t. In my understanding, the burgers made here are not packaged/branded distinctly under the tradename; rather, the eatery enjoys its reputation as one of the older burger cafes in Pune.
271751, titled “Preparation of AZOXYSTROBIN” The plaintiffs manufacture and market Azoxystrobin under the brand name AMISTAR. Background of the Case In this case, the plaintiffs, Syngenta Limited and Anr., Interim Injunction and Scientific Advisor Appointment An interim injunction application (I.A.
Although Kobe started his career with Adidas, he changed to Nike in 2003, and he stayed there for the rest of his life. Well, if the uptick in activity at the Trademark Office is any indication of what’s to come, we may see the late Mamba’s estate launch its own brand. So what now?
As a result, the Mickey Mouse copyright was then set to expire at the end of 2003. Although the original Mickey Mouse’s copyright protection will expire at the end of 2023, Disney will still be able to protect the Mickey Mouse brand through trademark law. Starting in 1990, Disney pushed hard for an extension of copyright protections.
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.
The single color or color combination of a product’s packaging can obtain Trademark Protection only if it is capable enough to be recognized by the general public as unique or belonging to a specific brand. 2003 (27) PTC 478 Del. It also encourages safeguarding the interests of the traders and consumers in the market.
But a prominent bar to such registration shall appear when the colour would be used in relation to a product denoting the quality or function of the product [28] —for example, registration of the colour ‘red’ for a brand of apple juice. 2003) 27 PTC 478 at para 63. See also: Libertel Group BV and Benelux-Merkenbureau [2003] E.T.M.R.
Louis Vuitton Malletier is a French fashion house and one of the most recognisable luxury goods brands in the world. It was awarded the world’s most valuable luxury brand for six consecutive years (2006-2012), topping even Chanel, Gucci, and Dior. After 12 decades, it has become one of the most identifiable marks on the planet!
One such instance was the recent case involving the renowned Basmati Rice Brand ‘DAAWAT’. The suit was filed by the proprietors of the brand, LT Foods Limited ( “Plaintiff” ) against Saraswati Trading Company ( “Defendant” ), who were accused of having diluted the trademarks of the Plaintiff [1]. 2,000 Crores in Financial Year 2020-21.
The garment and export business in Cambodia must create more useful service activities including branding, marketing, and sourcing in order for it to advance up the value chain. The RCEP offers a chance to expand agricultural exports in terms of production, processing, and exports. Conclusion.
This is because GI tags provide distinction in the marketplace, giving the producer a premium price since the product is genuine and well-branded. The court supported the farmers, which implied that the brand could not use the Nagpur orange GI tag.
Further, section 2(1)(m) of the Act states that a “…mark includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors or any combination thereof…”. The previous provisions raise the following two main issues: 1.
The Plaintiff’s first registration in India dates back to the year 1993 in Class 16, and the Plaintiff claimed to have been utilising and holding registration rights for the Trade Mark since October 2003 for the hospitality industry (class 42). It might be challenging for a brand owner to provide evidence of market confusion.
Further, it was alleged that they were diluting and tarnishing the brand by publishing AI-generated deepfake content using the said characters image and appearance across online platforms, including pornographic websites, which, the plaintiff argued, was detrimental to the overall reputation and goodwill amassed by the show over the years.
Introduction Brand owners and traders have long embraced numeral creativity to captivate consumers. Names like 7-eleven, 5 Star, 7Up, and 99acres resonate with consumers, widely reflecting the innovative use of number as brand identities.
It has become a common to modify brand names, movie titles etc. 2003 (27) PTC 457 (Bom) (DB). Parody is often taken as a defence in trademark infringement suits. to create memes, satirical one-liners etc., and will it amount to trademark infringement? References Civic Chandran v/s C. Ammini Amma (1996) 16 PTC 329 (Ker.)
Petitioner’s actions and communications stating that it no longer had any NAKED brand condoms in the United States so that it should be 'clear sailing' for Respondent to launch its NAKED brand condoms caused Respondent to reasonably believe that any rights Petitioner had in the NAKED trademark for condoms had been abandoned.
INTRODUCTION The historical narrative of color as a trademark unfolds as a captivating voyage intertwined with the evolution of branding methodologies and legal frameworks. The significance of trademarking colors lies in their profound impact on consumer perception and brand identity. In Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr.
However, outside the realm of brand marketing, when celebrities make use of a phrase, to the point of it becoming associated to them, it becomes a catchphrase of their own. trademark protection has been granted to catchphrases largely on the basis of creativity, distinctiveness, and proximal association of the brand with the good or service.
There are few e-commerce companies which explicitly make copies of brands such as Firstcopyclub, ShoesKartel etc. The scam can be at various levels and multi-facet forms including mimicking websites, selling cheaper copies of brands or even stealing ideas of originators [4]. Kirsty Phillips et al., 379 (2022). 2019 (77) PTC 1 (Del). [4]
Gradual Adoption in India In India, as early as in 2003, the Bombay High Court in R.R. It should not be taken for granted that the rule may have a disproportionate impact on small-scale entities with limited resources, daring to compete with more well-known brands in an ostensibly equal market. Oomerbhoy Pvt.
However, in 2003, with the case of Eastern Book Company v. Companies like the former have resources galore, including but not limited to, investors from around the world and celebrities endorsing their clothes and brand. However smaller stores have to rely on their creativity and effort to create a niche for themselves.
Applicant SICPA Holding SA ran into double trouble when it applied to register the mark SHIFTMAG for "security consulting in the nature of professional consulting on magnetic stripe color shifting smart designs based on liquid crystal technology for visual card authentication, embed protection and brand identity customization.”
This distinct packaging assists the consumers in associating a product with a particular brand which helps in developing the goodwill and reputation of the brand. References: [1] 2003 (27) PTC 478 Del. [2] One of the very first case which provided protection to trade dress was Colgate Palmolive Company v. 2] CS(COMM) 76/2018. [3]
When Justin Timberlake hosted the show in 2003, he attempted to fulfill his life-long dream of singing with Kermit the Frog. Jason Segel and the Muppets on SNL (2011). But not all of the Muppets’ appearances on “Saturday Night Live” have been authorized.
The following 4 points are the criteria of patentability [2] – Novelty – This criteria states that prior of the application for patent, the invention should be completely brand new and not earlier publicly known or disclosed throughout the world. Lastly, it doesn’t only protect the invention, a patent generate a valuable IP asset.
Interestingly, the first patent for Sirturo was filed on 18/07/2003 ( PCT/EP2003/050322 ), meaning it is (more than) 20 years since their first filing. As readers may know, in India, tuberculosis has been causing hundreds of thousands of deaths a year, for decades now. Fn 12 of the same paper).
They give a competitive edge to the brand and are not subject to public knowledge. Trade secrets also act as research tools for the company to modify its brand. Vs timepiece Communication Pvt Ltd on 27 March 2003. In Zee Telefilms Ltd.
with distinction from the United States Naval Academy in 2003. John McCormick works closely with businesses on brand adoption, protection, and enforcement in the U.S. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Maryland in 2008 and 2003, respectively, and his B.S. He received his J.D. He received his J.D.,
As a result, the Mickey Mouse copyright was then set to expire at the end of 2003. Although the original Mickey Mouse’s copyright protection will expire at the end of 2023, Disney will still be able to protect the Mickey Mouse brand through trademark law. Starting in 1990, Disney pushed hard for an extension of copyright protections.
418 (2003). What that means is that design patents are often used to protect brand identifiers as commercial source signifiers. Trademark Infringement The standards for proving design patent infringement and trademark infringement differ significantly regarding the relevance of consumer confusion about product source. Moseley v.
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.
In re Spirits Int’l N.V. , 3d 1347, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 2d 1489, 1490-95 (Fed. 2009); In re California Innovations , 329 F.3d 3d 1334, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 2d 1853, 1858 (Fed. The Board noted that there was no evidence that relevant U.S. Second, the screenshots are merely an advertisement of a third party cigar manufacturer touting the attributes of its product.
Recently, tech brands Rario and Striker found themselves in a tussle over the exclusive right to use images and names of famous cricket players on their respective Online Fantasy Sports Platform. Single Judge, the court restrained Brompton and its associates from using the YSL marks. It alleged that respondent No.
Given that finding and clearing a new brand purely from a legal perspective can take months, it is interesting to note that when a Defendant loses an infringement case it will almost certainly be ordered to rebrand within days, weeks at the most. Despite its last episode having aired in 2003, it remains very well loved.
Additionally, the SB had pointed out that the application for registration lacked essential documents as required by Section 16 (who can apply for the registration) in conjunction with Section 18(3) (time for making the application for registration) of the Act and Rule 27 of the PPVFR Rules 2003 (proof of the right of making application).
Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. And there are many other forms of competitive marketing adjacencies that are fully permissible in the offline/physical space world, as I documented over a decade ago in my Brand Spillovers paper. It didn’t. ” This abstract statement requires more clarification.
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