2004 Cease and Desist Designs Intellectual Property 
The IPKat
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
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.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law
AUGUST 6, 2021
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The IPKat
JANUARY 31, 2022
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.
IP and Legal Filings
MARCH 5, 2024
They are among the most valuable intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the digital age since they tend to be the main assets of technological companies and are exchanged on e-commerce platforms. This seriously threatens the financial interests and intellectual property rights of enterprises.
LexBlog IP
OCTOBER 25, 2021
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.” Alternatively, should trademark owners have a responsibility to aggressively protect their intellectual property?
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
DECEMBER 15, 2021
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!
Kluwer Copyright Blog
JANUARY 31, 2023
Under German law, there are no special rules governing liability in cases of intellectual property rights infringements. Stoererhaftung’ merely provides for a cease and desist and removal obligation where a reasonable duty was breached. The resulting conclusion in the BGH case law (e.g., Swan € 112
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
73 
Let's personalize your content