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
INTRODUCTION For a long time, logos, names, and jingles have been the mainstays of trademarklaw. A recent trend in branding, however, is the use of non-traditional trademarks such as haptic markings. Another important criterion for trademark registration is non-functionality. Trademark – India.
While its first registration for the brand name in India (1979) was under Class 16 [Paper & Paper Products] , the trademark was registered w.r.t. to restaurant services only in 2006. Relying on this observation, the Pune court found the local eatery to be a prior user of the contested trademark.
These intangible assets are often used in collaboration with other marks by the formation of a trademark portfolio, which consists of marks sharing a few characteristics and belonging to one entity. The issue of the distinctiveness of a family of trademarks was brought forth in the case of Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc.
Jack in the Box claims that FTX’s Moon Man constitutes, among other things, trademark dilution. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1996, which was substantially revised by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, addresses trademark dilution, including dilution by tarnishment and dilution by blurring.
The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (“TMA”) becomes effective on December 27, 2021 and makes several important amendments to federal trademarklaw (the Lanham Act) intended to modernize trademark application examinations and clean house of trademark registrations for marks not used in commerce.
Mountain Valley Springs, the plaintiff, has been marketing its products under the trademark (TM) “Forest Essentials” since 2000, claiming extensive reputation and goodwill, especially for their Ayurvedic products, including a baby care segment launched in 2006.
This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. In an April 2023 summary judgment ruling , the plaintiff established that it “possesses the legally protectable, incontestable trademarks TEXAS TAMALE and TEXAS TAMALE COMPANY.” ” Say what?
Consumer rights abuses, deceptive advertising, and unfair commercial practices are examples. However, it may be more appropriate to consider trademarklaw as a comparable framework for comprehending the extent of the personality right. National Law School of India Review , 31 (1), 125–148. L., & Lemley, M.
If a sub-brand performs the function, as Asava possibly does in this case, it must be treated as a trademark. In 2006 Kibow had applied for registration of its invention for a certain composition that augments kidney function and was granted patent protection. Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and Kibow Biotech Inc.
Image from here Trademarklaw has an interesting concept—generic disparagement that goes a bit further than general disparagement. Anyway, let’s cut to the meat of the matter: generic disparagement —a curious creature of trademarklaw that, if misunderstood, can easily curb the creative freedoms of advertising.
the Apex Court held that one of the inherent aspects of the right to privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is the right to prevent others from using the person’s name or likeness without his consent for advertising or non-advertising purposes. 2006 QB 125 : (2005) 3 WLR 881 : 2005 EWCA Civ 595.
21] Under this test, Ginger Rogers and the estate of Fred Astaire could not prevent a filmmaker from using the title “Ginger and Fred” in a fictional film because the use was “clearly related to the content of the movie and is not a disguised advertisement for the sale of goods or services or a collateral commercial product.” [22]
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