Remove 2010 Remove Artistic Work Remove Artwork
article thumbnail

Copyrighting the Ogopogo Monster: The © story behind the news story

The IPKat

Seabrook’s 2010 obituary says that-- …as a marketing / promotion effort, he personally obtained the registered trade-mark for the word “Ogopogo” and an artistic rendering of the famed lake monster. So, what was the work registered under Copyright #102327 on June 9, 1953.? We may never know.

Copyright 128
article thumbnail

Traditional Tattoos on the Red Carpet: Continuing the Conversation of Collective Ownership

IPilogue

In 2009, the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) mass-produced sweaters as part of their official merchandise for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Collective Ownership Over Cultural Artwork. Canadian courts have not yet grappled with the issue of collective ownership of Indigenous artwork. Their application was granted in 1997.

Ownership 102
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence in Music Creation

IP and Legal Filings

For a work to be copyrightable, it must be “original ” and fixed in “ tangible form”, such as a sound “recording recorded on a CD” or a “literary work printed on paper ”. [2] 2] A musical work is the composition itself and does not include the lyrics or any sounds. “It Danske Dagbaldes Forening, [2010] F.S.R.

Music 103
article thumbnail

Protecting Product and Packaging Designs in China Part II – Copyright

LexBlog IP

8) computer software; and (9) other intellectual achievements conforming to the characteristics of the works.” copyright protection is also available for artistic works first appearing in the context of 3D products, as we discussed in this earlier post relating to a furniture design. copyright law. For comparison, U.S.

Designs 40
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 4-March 10)

SpicyIP

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of “Café Social” for its restaurant in Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh infringes its trademark as it copied the “Social” word mark and the plaintiff’s distinctive artwork representing its trademark. Third, the evidence of the plaintiff’s use of the mark from 1989 are fabricated.