Remove 2003 Remove Public Domain Remove Registering Trademarks
article thumbnail

Mickey Mouse to Enter Public Domain in 2024

IPilogue

Every year on January 1, works protected under copyright law enter into the public domain due to their copyright protection expiring. As a result, the Mickey Mouse copyright was then set to expire at the end of 2003. Mickey Mouse is protected as Disney’s property because it is a registered trademark.

article thumbnail

Mickey Mouse to Enter Public Domain in 2024

IPilogue

Every year on January 1, works protected under copyright law enter into the public domain due to their copyright protection expiring. As a result, the Mickey Mouse copyright was then set to expire at the end of 2003. Mickey Mouse is protected as Disney’s property because it is a registered trademark.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Understanding Freedom to Operate (FTO) Concerning IP & Patents

Kashishipr

Three pharmaceutical companies, including Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Micromet AG, and Cambridge Antibody Technology (now acquired by AstraZeneca), in September 2003 announced signing a non-exclusive cross-license agreement. In the latter case, no license or permission of any sort is required from the patent owner for commercializing the product.

IP 105
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 8- May 13)

SpicyIP

Other Posts World of Possibilities: Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court Allows Use of Celebrity Information Available in Public Domain Delhi High Court specifies some contours of publicity rights in India! on 8 May, 2023 The plaintiff alleged infringement of registered trademark PANTOCID.

Trademark 104
article thumbnail

Time for the 12 O'Clock Boyz to go: court shuts down (c)/TM lawsuit against documentary & feature film about Baltimore bikers

43(B)log

Plaintiffs also alleged infringement of Monbo’s right of publicity, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Lanham Act and related Maryland trademark law. Plaintiffs also alleged infringement of Monbo’s right of publicity, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Lanham Act and related Maryland trademark law.