2005 Brands Designs Registration 
The IPKat
JULY 3, 2024
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Henning Hartwig (Bardehle Pagenberg) on a brand-new decision issued by the General Court of the European Union on 3 July 2024 in an interesting design case (Case T-329/22). The designer had a wide design freedom.
IP and Legal Filings
JANUARY 30, 2022
This popular case originated from a long-running legal dispute involving the Petitioner, Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. Lucky Brand), and the Respondent, Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. Lucky Brand claimed a defense against Marcel in the most recent case between the two, which it had not fully explored in a previous suit between them.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The TTABlog
DECEMBER 21, 2021
The NAKED condom case returned to the TTAB after a CAFC reversal [ TTABlogged here ] and the Supreme Court's denial of the registrant's petition for writ of certiorari (September 2021). Respondent's evidence and testimony showed that its principal had worked in the birth control industry since 1989, designing a "relaxed-fit" condom.
IPilogue
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
(MJT) applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking registration for use of the word “THE” on clothing, handbags, and related goods. Although OSU claims to have used the mark in commerce since August 2005, MJT’s application was filed earlier. THE dispute between the two parties continued from there.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
NOVEMBER 26, 2023
Years later, in 2005, the U.S. Copyright registration may be obtained to create a public record of the work and to assist the copyright owner in enforcement of their rights. Copyright registration in the U.S. Copyright Office have failed to show sufficient human involvement to allow their registration to proceed.
The IPKat
MAY 2, 2023
However, this argument did not satisfy the Court, which on the contrary, specified that it was those characteristics that are specific to Lidl’s brand. Copyright The Court also established that Lidl’s mark was protected by copyright as an original artistic work under Section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Corsearch
FEBRUARY 28, 2024
With the challenges posed by name saturation and the reduced availability of work marks, industrial designs are increasingly important within intellectual property strategies. When people think about designs they typically think of patents, but the world of protecting designs is far more extensive than that.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
64 
Let's personalize your content