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
Protection of trademarks is important for the following reasons: Preservation of brand identity Prevention of customer confusion Business investment protection Fair Competition Innovation in branding Famous infringement cases within the areas of intellectual property underline complex legal issues and stakes involved. Dongre and Ors.
The Reason Behind This Evolutionary Development Brand and companies have made it a trend to evolve from time to time creating variants over their original/ main or core mark. It strengthens brand awareness, builds a better rapport, and a more intimate Business-to-consumer relation which builds trust and faith in their product.
Image from here Manu Bhaker’s Olympics Victory: Do Brands Violate Publicity Rights by Putting out Congratulatory Posts? Moment marketing” refers to a strategy where brands can take advantage of ongoing events to gain relevance, and especially for some of the sheen of patriotic athletic victories to wear off on them.
This popular case originated from a long-running legal dispute involving the Petitioner, Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. Lucky Brand), and the Respondent, Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. Lucky Brand claimed a defense against Marcel in the most recent case between the two, which it had not fully explored in a previous suit between them.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued AbbVie and Besins Healthcare, co-owners of a patent that covered brand AndroGel, in 2017. The FTC claimed that the manufacturers had brought “sham” patent infringement litigation in 2011 against Teva and another generic supplier, Perrigo.
In order to facilitate resolution of brand-generic patent conflict, the Patent Laws include a form of paper infringement–a legal fiction that simply filing an ANDA and Paragraph IV certification counts as a form of patent infringement. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). ” In re Brimonidine Patent Litig., 3d 1366, 1378 (Fed.
The biggest individual brand story of the year was Facebook’s announcement of its new META brand. Major brands across industries – including Marvel, KISS, UFC, Nike, and many more – filed for trademarks to cover new products and services in the metaverse. 2011: [link]. Mega META announcement. NFT trademarks.
Comment Brand owners know that the battle against counterfeiting and piracy remains a challenging one. when are goods supposed to be for personal use, and when should they be assumed to be used in the course of trade), but they also represent a relief for brand owners who can enjoy brief victory in a never ending game of whac-a-mole.
We thank LaTia Brand of Harrity Analytics and the Stanford NPE Database, described in Shawn Miller et al., Paul Morgan, The Ambiguity in Section 102(a)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act , 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 29. ( Morgan.2011.AIAAmbiguities Who’s Suing Us? AIAAmbiguities ). derivation.pdf ).
CD Project likely anticipated that their games would be pirated, but seeing a site use its own brand to promote pirated games must have stung. Notice posted on GOG-Games earier this week According to the operators, CD Projekt’s GOG team has been trying to take the site offline since 2011. games; The Witcher and Cyberpunk 2077.”
I have one branded FIDELO with a carbon-fiber case that claims to block scammers trying to read the chip on my credit card. Mosaic Brands, Inc. In 2020, Storus (AKA “Mosaic Brands”) sued Ridge Wallet for both patent infringement (US7334616) and product-design trade dress misappropriation. 4th — (Fed.
Non-conventional or Non-Traditional trademarks such as sounds, color, shape, scent or any other motion marks have emerged as a new innovative tools widely being used in the todays changing and competitive market era that redefine how brands connect with the public at large.
Originally posted 2011-05-03 23:40:13. Republished by Blog Post Promoter An odd little display at a garden center in Clifton, New Jersey. The post Trademarks of yesterday appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™.
She entered into agreement with the brand JLM Couture Inc. in 2011, where she agreed not to compete with JLM and granted JLM permission to use her name. It is very common for Influencers to use their own name in business, and they may be unaware that they are signing agreements giving brands the rights to use their names.
Notable for their rise and public demise, piracy-related brands such as Napster, LimeWire, and Megaupload are still widely recognized today, despite their shutdowns long ago. Tamil Rockers launched as a torrent site in 2011, offering all of the usual types of pirate booty. Thrill, Drama, Crime: Tamil Rockers Has it All.
We thank LaTia Brand of Harrity Analytics and the Stanford NPE Database, described in Shawn Miller et al., Paul Morgan, The Ambiguity in Section 102(a)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act , 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 29. ( Morgan.2011.AIAAmbiguities Who’s Suing Us? AIAAmbiguities ). derivation.pdf ).
In 2011 and 2012, Booking.com applied to register “Booking.com” as a trademark associated with hotel reservation services with the U.S. Justice Ginsburg underscored that Booking.com is a distinctive business and that the public will not misunderstand the brand. Booking.com B.V. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Internet Brands opinion. Including the Internet Brands case, I found six cases using the phrase (see Appendix B). 2011 WL 1675043 (N.C. 28, 2011) Hare v. Internet Brands, Inc. , Internet Brands, Inc. , Internet Brands, Inc. , ” This phrase originated in the Doe v. Roommates.Com, LLC , 521 F.3d
Established, but offensive, brands change names. Never before have some many brands backed away from names or name origins that were offensive. Uncle Ben’s, Eskimo Pie, Aunt Jemima, Washington Redskins, and Cleveland Indians are some of the brands began name changes or removed items from their logo in 2020. 2011: [link].
In 2011, just four years after its launch, Cuevana.tv In a more recent report to the USTR, the MPA said that in August 2022 alone, a handful of Cuevana-branded domains received 130 million visits. Before Acámica, however, Escobar also created a rather successful website; Cuevana. was among the top 20 most-visited sites in Argentina.
The High Court held that the product was aimed at an adult public, with the suggestion that they eat the sweets as an effective remedy for their “everyday ills” The defendant in turn sells in FNAC stores, under its own brand, Molaquetemola, products with similar characteristics as regards their presentation and contents.
The company recently filed 10 applications with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the McDonald’s brand and McCafe. It was back in January 2011 when Future Enterprises had officially filed ‘Mac Coffee and Eagle device’ trademark before DOI. The trademarks are for virtual food and beverage products. Conclusion.
. (“Chanel”), is an iconic fashion company based in New York known for its luxury fashion products and owns rights to several Chanel and CC monograms trademarks associated with the brand design. The brand was not involved with selling secondly handed or vintage goods. Veronique Idea Corp., 2d 262, 267 (S.D.N.Y.
1 failed to contest the case despite multiple opportunities and was found to have deliberately copied the plaintiffs branding, leading to consumer deception. The Court emphasized that counterfeiting is a blatant trademark infringement that not only misleads consumers but also erodes brand value, warranting strict legal action.
And in the latest development of the dispute the High Court ruled that Muzmatch has unfairly benefited from Match Group’s reputation and investment in its brand and was riding on Match Group’s coattails for undeserved gain. According to The Guardian , Mr Shahzad set up Muzmatch as a side business in 2011.
Use in an online environment The court first set out a recap on case law illustrating what constitutes “use” in an online environment, including the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Google France [2010] RPC 19 , L’Oréal v eBay [2011] RPC 27 , and Coty Germany v Amazon Services Europe [2020] ETMR 27.
Today, we as consumers can easily identify the products of popular brands due to the positioning of some specific elements on the products, for instance, the three stripes of Adidas, Louboutin’s red sole shoes, or the red label on the back pocket of Levi’s jeans. It was recognized as a position mark.
What with all the good ones being taken, it’s only getting harder to hit that brand-name home run for a new product. Originally posted 2011-02-22 13:25:32. Republished by Blog Post. The post Naming names appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™.
In an otherwise straightforward Section 2(d) analysis, the Board ruled that confusion is likely between Respondent's registered marks MIRAGE BRANDS (standard form) and MIRAGE BRANDS & Design [BRANDS disclaimed], and Petitioner Mahender Sabhnani's previously used and registered mark ROYAL MIRAGE & Design , all for perfume.
In 2011 he was convicted in Russia for hacking the website of football club FC Zenit or, more accurately according to this Sophos report , hijacking its DNS. . “With my colleagues I will destroy the entire industry involved in recording and selling audiobooks.” He admitted wrongdoing but said he had been politically motivated.
Conceived by Ruth Handler and named after her own daughter, Barbie has, from its inception, been a driving force behind Mattel’s successful branding efforts, resulting in the sale of over a billion Barbie dolls and the expansion of the franchise into various media, including video games, merchandise, and a live-action movie.
2011), which imported the well-known trademark principle to protect well-known names as well. Striking a balance, an interim order requiring the inclusion of a disclaimer (in audio/video versions of the song) stating that the names used in the song were merely examples, with no intent to harm or disrespect any individual or brand, was given.
All of these sites have long since disappeared, but interestingly their brands live on. In 2011 the file-hosting service was added to Hollywood’s list of notorious pirate sites and subsequently featured in the U.S. Putlocker.com. A few days ago we saw one of these classic piracy names go up for auction at Namejet.
Background In 2011, Tecnica applied to register the 3D sign below, corresponding to the shape of its Moon Boots after-ski footwear, as an EU trade mark (EUTM) for goods in classes 18, 20, and 25. Inspired by the boots worn by Neil Amstrong to walk on the surface of the Moon in 1969, the Moon Boots were the first, dedicated after ski footwear.
After being founded in 2011, ZT grew to become one of France’s most-visited sites overall with millions of visitors every month. French Military Police Shut Down Site in 2016. Offering a wide variety of pirated content, including movies, TV shows, games and music, the site’s domain was once the 11th most popular in France.
Despite signing an Exit Paper in 2011 agreeing to cease using the mark, the defendant allegedly continued unauthorized use, misleading the public into believing an affiliation still existed. Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. 3,00,000 in damages.
Besides Mariah, there were many other celebrity trademark stories this year, as more an more celebrities launch more and more brands. 2011: [link]. Carey may still be able to use the phrase even without registration. Celebrity trademark messes. Past issues of Top Trademark Trends: 2021: [link]. 2020: [link]. 2019: [link].
Their rights will be protected thanks to the metaverse brands’ trademarks. By deterring rip offs, trademarks safeguard a company’s identity and the repute of its brand(s), especially in the Metaverse. It might be more difficult than ever in the metaverse to police brands. What is the Metaverse?
Introduction Brand owners and traders have long embraced numeral creativity to captivate consumers. Names like 7-eleven, 5 Star, 7Up, and 99acres resonate with consumers, widely reflecting the innovative use of number as brand identities.
10-CV-1662, 2011 WL 13224118 (E.D. July 22, 2011)). It was also relevant, though not dispositive, that other supplements sold under the same brand were, in fact, one per day. Bayer AG, No. 17-CV-647, 2017 WL 3168525 (N.D. July 26, 2017), vacated and remanded, 742 F. App’x 325 (9th Cir. 2018); and Howard v. Bayer Corp.,
In addition, the notion of ‘counterfeit’ was taken to refer to “ items that look identical to a genuine product with or without the official branding/logo, but are not made by the brand and may be of lower quality, for example, a handbag of identical design to a “Chanel” with or without the Chanel logo.”
Do a quick Google search and you will find many sites explaining the history and significance of the phrase to Apple and its branding, and how it brought a new wave of popularity and interest to a floundering Apple company as of 1997. from 14 October 2011 to 13 October 2016). Trying to follow Apple's words of wisdom.
For a platform to be blocked by Germany’s ISPs, the committee must conclude that the site is structurally infringing, a standard applied in the UK’s first ever site blocking injunction back in 2011. but the Audit Committee’s report mentions only the headline brand BuffStreams, with other domains redacted.
Scarlet’s landmark victory in 2011 remains one of the most important of its kind but in the 13 years that followed, entertainment companies changed and consumption of pirated content changed. While the legal principles underlying Scarlet’s victory did not, attitudes towards acceptable filtering and blocking were on the move.
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