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
Plaintiffs allege that Intershez, formed in 1996 and with a distribution agreement with Shezan International, registered Shezan Services’ trademarks without permission in 2004. The p laintiffs argue that after Intershez was dissolved in 2008, it falsely claimed ownership of the trademarks and used them to record with U.S.
The attention of this SpecialKat was recently drawn to the decision of the Nigerian Court of Appeal in Banire v NTA-Star TV Network Ltd regarding the question of authorship and ownership of copyright in photographs used for advertising purposes and the issue of image rights in Nigeria.
Trade mark ownership is an important consideration for any business. Ensuring that a business holds all rights to enable it to make full use of its trade mark should be front of mind in any branding consideration. At this point, it may be too late! Let’s start with the legislation – a very good place to start.
Visual Elements: Podcast cover art, promotional graphics, logos , and any visual branding elements that accompany the podcast. Dimension Films (2004), where the court ruled that even a brief, unlicensed sample of copyrighted music could lead to copyright infringement. A pertinent example is the case of Bridgeport Music, Inc.
Priority: Applicant ADOL proved that it first used the subject marks in the United States in April 2004. 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. ADOL Sh.p.k.
Read Tejaswini’s post on the recent DHC order concerning these two liquor brands. The Respondent operates his business through two incorporated entities and claims ownership of the trademark via the permitted use by the two incorporated entities. The Plaintiff has been using the infringed trademark ‘FLY HIGH’ since 2004.
Spartan Online [5] , the Calcutta High Court had focused on the need for the domain names to be distinguishable from others for the purpose of establishing separate brand identity. It also held that when possessor of a trademark has prior and exclusive usage, they not only possess superior title but also absolute ownership.
Once the mark is registered under trademark act, the mark then gives the proprietor some rights to enjoy with the trademark repetitively and liabilities to maintain so that the proprietor doesn’t lose the ownership. TRA/159/2004/TM/DEL] [iii] K.R vs. M/s Kellog Co. [ii] ii] , wherein this case, the IPAB invalidated the Kellog Co.
Intellectual Property such as patents, trademarks, brand value, copyright, etc have become foundational assets for several businesses, seeking greater importance and attention. The agreement lays down conditions for patent ownership in the event of default. If the patent is found valuable enough, the creditor proceeds with the loan.
NFTs (Non-fungible tokens), which act as a certificate of ownership for whatever the creator puts up for sale, allow artists to set their preferred terms of contract while making sales. In a piece for Live Law, Eashan Ghosh critically analyses Section 22(4) of the Indian Designs Act, 2004. Other News from Around the World.
BI argues that FDA’s current interpretation “encourages, or at least permits, brand sponsors to use minor concentration changes as an anti-competitive tactic.” In particular, Judge Reyna would have interpreted the “2004 Accord & Satisfaction between Roche. . . BI points to Humira ® (adalimumab) as an example. Sandoz , 964 F.3d
Regardless of who invested how much, Janssen does have ownership over at least 5 patents, as mentioned above, and this is what we look at below. The application WO2004/011436 , was published in 2004. As readers may know, in India, tuberculosis has been causing hundreds of thousands of deaths a year, for decades now.
The judgment reaffirmed that established brands can prevent dilution and unauthorized use of distinctive trademark elements. The petitioner demonstrated prior use since 1996 and extensive brand recognition in India and globally. 1, however, asserted legitimate registration and continuous use since 2003-2004. Tag Heuer S.A
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