Remove 2004 Remove Cease and Desist Remove Designs
article thumbnail

[Guest post] Dutch IP battle about the hyped “Crompouce®”- a croissant-tompouce hybrid

The IPKat

It, however, appears that the sign Crompouce® was registered as a trademark with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) already in 2020 and the design was registered as a Benelux design in the same year. The validity of the design right(s) to the Crompouce® might be a topic for another post.

article thumbnail

Energy Beverages Sued Indiana Automotive Shop for Alleged Trademark Infringement

Indiana Intellectual Property Law

Evansville, Indiana – In 2004, the Coca-Cola Company launched its Full Throttle® energy drink brand, which was later apparently acquired by Monster Beverage Company (“Monster”) in 2015. Energy also claims it has used a distinctive trade dress on its Full Throttle® products since 2004. Registration Nos.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

No IP, no right to information? CJEU to clarify scope of article 8 Enforcement Directive

The IPKat

Under article 8(1) of the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC) a claimant in infringement proceedings can request a court to order certain parties to disclose information. This so-called ‘right to information’ includes information on the origin of the infringement (e.g. One image is depicted below.

article thumbnail

Preventing Trademark Infringement or Stifling Healthy Competition? A Look at 1-800 Contacts and its Keyword Advertising Battle

LexBlog IP

Starting in 2004 , the Company began issuing cease-and-desist letters to competitors, demanding that they prevent their search ads from appearing in response to the keyword “1-800 Contacts.”

article thumbnail

Copyright case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof 2015 – 2019 – Part 4 of 4: Copyright contract law and enforcement

Kluwer Copyright Blog

According to the BGH, the specific design of the cards and consoles manufactured by the plaintiff constituted effective technical measures within the meaning of Section 95a (2) and (3) No. The German provisions are based on the relevant provisions in the EU Enforcement Directive (2004/48).

article thumbnail

A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! ??–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In 2004, the Ninth Circuit eviscerated it (in the Rossi case) by requiring plaintiffs to show that senders subjectively believed their takedown notices were abusive. Diebold from 2004, which led to a $125k damages award. Defendant had not obtained the Deposit Design from the Copyright Office. A New 512(f) Plaintiff Win!

article thumbnail

Germany: Liability of hosting providers under copyright law if they have breached a duty of care – The German BGH ends mere ‘Stoererhaftung’

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Stoererhaftung’ merely provides for a cease and desist and removal obligation where a reasonable duty was breached. In relation to uploaded, the BGH concluded that the financial model adopted was based on the availability of illegal content and was designed to encourage its users to share such content via the platform.