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
Abhinandan, on the other hand, transferred his ownership to the real estate group in return for Rs. He also argued that the FSA stipulated that Abhinandan could not use the TM or brand name Lodha in any manner whatsoever. Macrotech Developers similarly, he argues, has filed the suit to protect their brand. Prafull (2013).
In 2013, Afdah.com entered the already crowded market and quickly attracted millions of users tempted by a comprehensive library of copyright-infringing movies. Nevertheless, several well-known ‘pirate’ brands exploited the ‘loophole’, including Movie4K, Putlocker, Yify and Afdah.
Interestingly, T-Series enjoys joint ownership of the franchise “Aashiqui” with Vishesh Films. Murugadoss (2013) concerning the title “Raja Rani” and by the Bombay HC in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v. This principle was echoed by the Madras HC in Radhakrishnan v. Does the Plaintiff Have a Trademark?
A large fields of things that can be registered as a trademark Traditional and Non Traditional Trademarks JM et al,2013 Trademarks can actually be anything from words, symbols, pictures but this has in recent years expanded to the non-traditional trademarks. Here are the main categories of elements that can be registered as trademarks: 1.
Introduction The brand ‘Haldiram’ has been synonymous with various savouries in India for many years, especially their legendary bhujia. A recent ruling by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court elevated the brand Haldiram as a well-known trademark. The defendants incorporated a company by the name “Haldiram Restro Pvt.
In a footnote, the court acknowledges the law is “evolving” with respect to employer ownership of social media accounts: The law on the ownership of a social media pages created by employees for employers is evolving rapidly and varies between jurisdictions. 201 (Spring 2013). See generally, Christopher A. TELECOMM. &
for unlawfully manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, selling, and distributing unauthorized, counterfeit versions of its popular CAKE brand of hemp-derived Delta-8 products. But the distribution right does not include “the mere transportation of goods without a transfer or sale of ownership interest in the goods.”
Industria, based on Colombia, produces and distributes food products under two relevant brand names: Zenú and Ranchera. They’re successful brands: approximately $300,000,000 annually in sales of Zenú products and $100,000,000 in sales of Ranchera products. Prior import plans in 2010-11 were paused.
Illyrian Import claimed to be the exclusive authorized distributor and brand agent of a company ("GKS") that continuously sold GJERGJ KASTRIOTI SKËNDERBEU and SKËNDERBEU brandy in the United States since 2002. Fraud: Illyrian alleged that ADOL committed fraud by falsely claiming ownership of the subject marks. See also Chem.
Companies Act, 2013. Merger & Acquisition has been mentioned from Section 230 to 234 of Chapter XV of the Companies Act, 2013. Certain benefits can be listed as: Gaining recognition and global brands. In our country various legal framework deals with the mergers and acquisitions. Securities Laws. Case Study. billion dollars.
The defendant, a Chinese chocolate maker, used a similar packaging design to produce and sell TRESOR DORE branded chocolates, which the SPC held were likely to cause consumer confusion. Armed with the registration of the 3D mark, Ferrero went after another Chinese copycat company called Gold Monkey in 2013. Ferrero’s Products.
Although there are many well-known marks in the industry, registering marks is a vital process for businesses to safeguard their brand identity and intellectual property and to obtain exclusive rights over them. Introduction Trademarks are the identifiers that enable businesses to establish a strong footing in the global marketplace.
Intellectual Property such as patents, trademarks, brand value, copyright, etc have become foundational assets for several businesses, seeking greater importance and attention. The agreement lays down conditions for patent ownership in the event of default. If the patent is found valuable enough, the creditor proceeds with the loan.
Petitioners alleged that from 2003 to October 2016, Petitioners and Respondent operated as a partnership and shared equally the profits derived from arranging and organizing dance parties in New York City under the Freedom Party brand. Until late 2017, the “Freedom Party” was advertised to the public as the joint creation of the parties.
The Metaverse provides vast opportunities for brands to venture into creation of new technologies. The ownership would simply be transferred from the existing real world to the virtual world or the companies and individuals would need to register their trademarks again. Facebook, 2019 remains a question. Conclusion.
NFTs (Non-fungible tokens), which act as a certificate of ownership for whatever the creator puts up for sale, allow artists to set their preferred terms of contract while making sales. She highlights that the emphasis is on investing only in royalty revenue and not buying the artist’s rights or retaining control over their work.
It seems that boat designers/manufacturers used C&Ds under this regime, but there were 1100 utility patents on boat hulls and 20 design patents since 2013, which was the last boat hull registration. Ownership is of linguistic description of structural properties of invention. Is this bringing in concepts from TM/ROP about branding?
BI argues that FDA’s current interpretation “encourages, or at least permits, brand sponsors to use minor concentration changes as an anti-competitive tactic.” This presumption is a departure from the traditional framework for analyzing the legality of patent settlements set forth by the Supreme Court in the 2013 case, FTC v.
The plaintiff was granted, through an agreement, an exclusive non-transferable, non-assignable license for selling, supplying, and distributing the defendant’s brands in domestic and international markets. If a sub-brand performs the function, as Asava possibly does in this case, it must be treated as a trademark.
It was approved through an accelerated approval process based on partial trials, i.e., Phase 2 trials in the US in 2012, and EU in 2013, following which the WHO released its Interim Policy Guidelines to guide usage in the absence of Phase 3 trials. Fn 12 of the same paper).
Lets explore how to divorce-proof your IP and keep your business, brand, and creative works safe from a messy breakup. Further still, the idea that an ex-spouse may make a trust claim in your IP, which can lend to them having a potential ownership interest can often be unfavorable, to say the least. Cinar Corp v.
Trademarked logos and brand names are often misused on counterfeit goods sold via unauthorized e-commerce sites and social media channels, deceiving consumers and harming brand reputation. Rule 75 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 outlines the essentials of a takedown notice. Proof of ownership of the IP right.
The Court considered several issues including the ownership of the trademark as well as the similarity in the trademark used by the defendant. The plaintiff also mentioned that the defendant was a partner with the plaintiff in the firm incorporated in 2013 but the partnership was discontinued. Prakash vs M/S.
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