Remove 2020 Remove Artistic Work Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Bombay High Court Rules that Copyright Registration of a Label is not Compulsory

Kashishipr

Under Section 2(c) of The Copyright Act of 1957 , the label is an original artistic work. It was in October 2020 when SSPL came to know about NTC’s use of a similar label and trade dress for its set of soya bean edible oil products. In May 2007, the label mark ‘SOYA DROP’ was registered. Concluding Remarks.

article thumbnail

Beyond the Big Screen: The Legal Odyssey of Film Titles in India

IP and Legal Filings

1] The Copyright Act protects certain types of works, which are included in Section 13. 13 (1) states that original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works as well as cinematograph films and sound recordings are protected by copyright. Ameya Vinod Khopkar Entertainment, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 11301 [9] Rakshana.

Cinema 97
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

Intellectual Property Law Blog

10] The Supreme Court declined to answer the question and noted “[w]ithout deciding whether Rogers has merit in other contexts, we hold that it does not when an alleged infringer uses a trademark in the way the Lanham Act more cares about: as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods.” 3d, 1170, 1175-1176 (2020). [18]

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

10] The Supreme Court declined to answer the question and noted “[w]ithout deciding whether Rogers has merit in other contexts, we hold that it does not when an alleged infringer uses a trademark in the way the Lanham Act more cares about: as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods.” 1669, 1683-1684 n.58

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

10] The Supreme Court declined to answer the question and noted “[w]ithout deciding whether Rogers has merit in other contexts, we hold that it does not when an alleged infringer uses a trademark in the way the Lanham Act more cares about: as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods.” 1669, 1683-1684 n.58

article thumbnail

Jack Daniels v. VIP Products and the Freedom to Parody and Comment in the United States

Kluwer Copyright Blog

In a twist, however, it is not copyright law, but rather an expansive view of trademark law, that poses this threat. Authors often draw on these shared associations in their literary works, sending beloved fictional characters to real colleges, serving them familiar cereals, and outfitting them in well-known clothing labels.

article thumbnail

Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. She writes and teaches in the trademark law area, and recently wrote a paper with Professor Christine Haight Farley that focuses on speech-protective doctrines in trademark infringement law.] By Guest Blogger Lisa P. Ramsey [Lisa P.