The IP Law Blog

APRIL 30, 2021

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?

Trademark 87

Trademark Brands Branding Branding 87

IIPRD

JANUARY 21, 2022

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. Also, the scope of trade dress protection is comparatively a lot broader than the protection offered by the trademark law. Anchor Health &Beauty Care Pvt.

Brands 40

Brands Branding Branding Trademark Law 40

IPilogue

MARCH 27, 2023

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.

Public Domain 40

Public Domain Copyright Law Copyright Registering Trademarks 40

SpicyIP

AUGUST 26, 2024

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.

Personality Rights 108

Personality Rights Privacy Copyright Trademark 108

IP and Legal Filings

JUNE 26, 2023

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.

Trademark 84

Trademark Fair Use Registration Brands 84

Patently-O

SEPTEMBER 17, 2023

The Federal Circuit’s pair of decisions provide guidance on how logos factor into the design patent infringement inquiry, and begin to tease-out differences in policy concerns underlying design patent law versus trademark law. For trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, likelihood of consumer confusion is a key requirement.

Design Patent 72

Design Patent Patent Infringement Design Designs 72

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

OCTOBER 19, 2021

It’s not possible to “trespass” an intangible asset; any legal protection for the asset comes from contract law (but the plaintiffs gave a license) or IP law, such as copyright law, which the plaintiffs aren’t invoking. Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. It didn’t.

Licensing 97

Licensing Copyright Contracts Advertising 97

Copyright Lately

MAY 1, 2023

No wonder I’m getting flashbacks to 2003. As I explained in my discussion of the Rick Astley lawsuit , right of publicity and trademark law provided viable claims to Bette Midler and Tom Waits when imitations of their voices were used in advertising. Soundalikes: No Actual Sounds, No Actual Infringement?

Music 86

Music Copyright Copying Copyright Law 86

IP and Legal Filings

APRIL 14, 2023

There have been several instances wherein the Courts have granted protection and recognized marks as Well-Known Trademarks. One such instance was the recent case involving the renowned Basmati Rice Brand ‘DAAWAT’. It is the case of the Plaintiff that it is one of the 50 most renowned brands among Food Companies in North India.

Trademark 95

Trademark Brands Branding Branding 95

LexBlog IP

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

Joost Kist Memex (2003) , par. 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.

Trademark 52

Trademark Registration Music Intellectual Property 52

Patently-O

DECEMBER 12, 2021

2003) (quoting Mark S. 471, 500 (2003)). [16] Lemley, What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law , 58 Stan. 903, 930 (2003) (“[T]here is good reason to think… that the right of publicity is unconstitutional as to all noncommercial speech, and perhaps even as to commercial advertising as well.”). [24]

Registration 69

Registration Government Advertising Advertising 69