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
We are pleased to bring you a guest post from Payal Saraogi, on a recent decision of the Delhi High Court on Google’s use of trademarks as advertisement keywords. Payal has graduated from the School of Law, Christ University in 2020, and currently practices as a disputes lawyer. Confusion caused by Google’s keyword policy.
On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for false advertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. Pelton & Associates ®, a boutique trademarklaw firm in Falls Church, Virginia. trademarks for clients and has represented hundreds of parties in trademark disputes.
In Mohan Meakin Ltd v AB Sugars Ltd (2013), wherein the mark TALL MOM was deemed identical to OLD MONK on grounds of phonetic similarity, despite the difference in product categories (former being country liquor and latter being Indian Made Foreign Liquor), the Delhi HC found infringement under section 29(2)(c), while presuming consumer confusion.
3] [Image Sources: Shutterstock] Starbucks vs. Charbucks: This long-running dispute from 2001 to 2013 over a small New Hampshire coffee roaster’s use of “Charbucks” for dark roast coffee, arguing that Starbucks had diluted its famous trademark, places a number of issues regarding trademark dilution and parody at the very centre of this case.
com” at after a generic word, “Booking,” still makes “Booking.com” generic within traditional trademarklaw [xiv] and (2) the fact consumer identify “Booking.com” doesn’t change the fact that it is still generic and thus ineligible for trademark registration. [xv] 21, 2013), [link]. [vi] Booking.com B.V., at 2301 (2020).
But after 2013, when Respondent last advertised the CS amps in its domestic catalogs, domestic sales plummeted, rapidly dwindling to single digits and then zero at some points in the critical 2016-2021 time frame. Lanham Act, Section 45.
It has marketed its software under the name “SmartSync” since 2004 and obtained a trademark for SmartSync in 2007. It sells its software primarily to the United States Navy but, in 2013, sold its software to at least one major pharmacy chain.
In that case, Google was using the plaintiff’s (Bharatmatrimony) trademark for advertising the websites of other matrimonial sites. Unlike UDRP, it is governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and hence, binding in the court of law 8. This is because there were several factual questions in dispute. Comm.Div.).No.223
Can “honest concurrent use” be used as a defense against a trademark infringement claim? Lokesh, highlighting its history, argues that honest concurrent use is a principle of trademarklaw and is not limited to a provision. Delhi High Court directs Registry to advertise KFC’s ‘Chicken Zinger’ trademark.
In Europe and the United States at least, every trademark has at least three purposes: (1) It identifies the origin of a product or service; (2) It guarantees consistent quality of that good or service; (3) It serves as symbolic communication as a basis for publicity and advertising.
Some “highlights” of 1-800 Contacts’ trademark jurisprudence over the years: 1-800 Contacts v. This is the correct way to analyze the mark similarity factor in competitive keyword advertising cases, though many courts have not taken this approach. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. WhenU (2d Cir.
Plaintiffs also alleged infringement of Monbo’s right of publicity, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Lanham Act and related Maryland trademarklaw. Defendants' 2013 documentary Both parties’ works are “docu-fiction” set in Baltimore. Defendants' 2013 documentary Both parties’ works are “docu-fiction” set in Baltimore.
Google argued that even when the keyword is a trademark, it is never used in a ‘trademark sense’, thereby the invisible use of trademarks, as keyword, failing to meet the threshold to constitute infringement. Several petitions in the Madras High Court challenged the validity of rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013.
Finally, Apple uses its trademarks largely within its marketing strategies in such a way that they are displayed in advertisements, product packaging, and retail shops, which serves to sustain its high-tech and premium brand image. India became a part of the protocol in 2013.
The integrity of trademarklaw is seriously threatened by such exploitative strategies, which emphasises the necessity of court action to defend and preserve the rights of rightful trademark owners. A study of Indian and US TrademarkLaw relating to the effect of ‘Non-Use’of a trademark. [3] 2014). .—[(1)
Although the process requires time, strategy and resources, it is possible to turn a sign, which in principle would not meet the necessary requirements to access the register, into a trademark worth its weight in gold in the market. Acquired distinctiveness is a fundamental concept in trademarklaw.
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. State of T.N., Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., 2007, I, no.
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