Remove 2009 Remove Advertising Remove Litigation Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

China: The New Draft Trademark Law Increases Requirements for Recognition of Well-Known Status

IP Tech Blog

The recently published Draft Amendment to the Chinese Trademark Law is proposing the introduction of important changes to the current trademark system in China. The draft Article 18 Trademark Law correctly removes the distinction between registered and unregistered well-known marks. For example, the actual art.

article thumbnail

Trademark Infringement in the Digital Age

IP and Legal Filings

Trademark infringement has grown more complex and pervasive, ranging from counterfeit goods to digital squatting and keyword advertising. Using trademarks in domain names, linking, framing, meta-tagging, and framing are a few methods that could lead to trademark challenges.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Journey Through “Octobers” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) 

SpicyIP

Basheer, in his 2009 post, about Chantix, a Pfizer-patented anti-smoking drug, raised questions regarding transparency around the discretion to require local clinical trials. The vacated order restrained Google from infringing Consim’s trademark on Bharat Matrimony. “Ad-word” ruling on Indian businesses and trademark holders?

article thumbnail

Trademark Extraterritoriality: Abitron v. Hetronic Doesn’t Go the Distance (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Nonetheless, the majority opinion will have significant practical implications for transnational litigation in all IP areas. In addition, the opinion has important ramifications for domestic trademark law through its identification of “use in commerce” as the actionable domestic conduct. Yes, and no.

article thumbnail

Connect 4: Trade Dress Infringement and Secondary Meaning

The IP Law Blog

The Ninth Circuit noted that courts should consider a number of factors, including “direct consumer testimony; survey evidence; exclusivity, manner and length of use of a mark; amount and manner of advertising; amount of sales and number of customers; established place in the market; and proof of intentional copying by the defendant.”

Copying 98