Remove 2011 Remove Advertising Remove Copying Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit. The plaintiff has a trademark registration for the “Nursing CE Central” mark for providing continuing education for nurses. This is fine, but it deviates from courts’ efforts over the years to come up with multi-factor variations specific to keyword advertising.

article thumbnail

2021 IP Year in Review

IPilogue

Our hard-working students and community members published more than twice as many articles than in 2020 and the most articles in a calendar year since 2011. Trademark Law. Parody in Trademarks is No Joke. Currently, under Quebec’s French-language laws, both registered and unregistered (i.e.,

IP 106
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Defendant has also used Plaintiffs’ trademarks “Seeking Millionaire,” “Seeking Arrangement,” “Whats Your Price,” “Carrot Dating,” and “Seeking” as search terms in the Apple Appstore and Google Play Store to yield LuxyApp as a search result. There’s also a copyright claim for Luxy copying the plaintiff’s TOS/privacy policy.

article thumbnail

Delhi High Court grants injunction against ‘dialmytrip’ in MakeMyTrip India Private Limited v. Dialmytrip Tech Private Limited

SpicyIP

For the benefit of readers, I am copy-pasting the relevant parts of the judgment: “9. There have been plenty of studies in the United States of America where the psychological impact of confusion in trademarks have been studied. Ltd, against the mark ‘dialmytrip’ and the domain names ‘www.dialmytrip.com’ and ‘www.dmtgroup.in’.

article thumbnail

Connect 4: Trade Dress Infringement and Secondary Meaning

The IP Law Blog

Johnson Enterprises bought a copy of the P&P game, sent samples to a Chinese manufacturer, and began selling an almost identical version of P&P’s game that it called “Tailgating Pros White Connect 4” in October 2017. The Ninth Circuit first recognized that “proof of copying strongly supports an inference of secondary meaning.”

Copying 98
article thumbnail

Right of Publicity Part 2

IP and Legal Filings

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. 2662/2011 Douglas v. State of T.N.,

Privacy 99