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
The case concerned the Australian trade mark registration for the words "KATIE PERRY" (No. Her first worldwide tour in 2009 included four shows performed in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and she sold "KATY PERRY" branded apparel and merchandise at these concerts. Background Katy Perry during the Prismatic tour in 2014.
In such a situation, the owner may not invalidate the later mark or take action against its use in respect of the goods or services for which the later trade mark has been used, unless registration of the later mark was applied for in bad faith (Art. 9(1),(3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 (‘EUTMD’)). The plaintiff did not respond.
In a case decided under the TTAB's ACR regime, the Board granted a petition for cancellation of Nema Foods' twenty-year old registration for the mark SEYIDOGLU (in standard form) for various food items, finding that the mark falsely suggests a connection with Petitioner, a major manufacturer of food products, including Turkish desserts and jams.
For example (the details vary a little depending on defendant, but you get the picture): The STURGIS BIKE WEEK registration dates to 1997; defendants’ “Sturgis Motor Classic” came from 1997-98. The Composite Design Mark registration specifically acknowledged that it made “no claim. the public about the STURGIS Registrations.”
In an exhaustive and exhausting opinion, the Board granted petitions to cancel two registration for the mark OLD SCHOOL for various clothing items, on the ground of abandonment. The Board found that the registrant, despite claiming attempts to sell or license the mark, had discontinued use of the mark with an intent not to resume use.
Considering that the petitioner is the prior user of the mark and has an earlier registration, Delhi High Court directs the Trademarks registry to remove the respondent’s allegedly similar mark. Since the petitioner has priority over both registration and the user of the said trademark, the court, thus, ordered the Ld.
? ?. One person who clearly didn’t understand this was Mr Gu who set up a Chinese takeaway in Barrow-in-Furness in 2009 using the name China Tang. One reason people tend to be confused into believing it is acceptable to use their chosen name is that they managed to secure their desired company name or domain name registration.
Trademark owners frequently used cease and desist letters to pressure infringers to stop using their marks without authorization before taking legal action. The registration and management of trademarks was another essential component. The inability to identify the parties at fault makes taking legal action nearly impractical.
But although this phrase is used by many, two restaurant companies actually own TACO TUESDAY trademark registrations that they can assert as conclusive evidence of their exclusive rights to use the slogan and enforce those rights against anyone who tries to use the mark. Taco Bell is seeking to change that. The Lanham Act, which governs U.S.
In 2009, Prof. Speaking of the International System, the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration shouldn’t be missed. Basheer also discussed the “Efficacy” of Section 3(d) in the context of Patent Oppositions in India here and here. Perhaps not.
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