Remove Advertising Remove Brands Remove Fair Use
article thumbnail

Harpic v. Domex Advertisement: Product Disparagement or Nominative Fair Use?

SpicyIP

Domex Advertisement: Product Disparagement or Nominative Fair Use? An image of the comparative advertisement launched by Domex, wherein Domex explicitly asks which toilet cleaner fights bad smell for longer and makes a tick mark against Domex, with Harpic as another option next to it. Pragya Jain. image from here ).

Fair Use 105
article thumbnail

Harpic v. Domex:Product disparagement or nominative fair use?

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction Advertising is an important strategy for a company to sell its products to the customer. Advertising generated awareness about a particular product in among the masses and the reaction of the masses decides the fate of the product. To increase their sales, often companies indulge themselves in comparative advertising.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition

SpicyIP

We’re pleased to bring you a guest post by Sangita Sharma, looking into the law around comparative advertisements in India. Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. It allowed the advertisement but asked the company to remove the reference to the detergent soap. Sangita Sharma.

article thumbnail

Atari’s Copyright Claim Against State Farm Survives Challenge

Copyright Lately

Atari’s copyright infringement lawsuit against State Farm advances, underscoring the importance of careful clearance in advertising. In addition to copyright infringement, Atari brought claims for business disparagement, false information and advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

Fair Use 113
article thumbnail

Nominative fair use of a logo on a motion to dismiss: common sense has its day

43(B)log

“Xfinity alleges GGT is using fake or stolen identities to obtain Xfinity phones, and that GGT ‘unlocks’ those phones before reselling them abroad for a profit.” However, GGT’s website use of Xfinity’s logo was nominative fair use as a matter of law.

article thumbnail

Understanding Copyright, Trademark and Halloween Costumes

Plagiarism Today

Besides, even if a rightsholder did decide to target such home uses (which would likely be against their self-interest), it is almost certain that it would be found to be a fair use. However, commercial use of costumes still raises legal questions. They are part fashion, part artwork, part branding and part character.

Trademark 279
article thumbnail

Jury Awards Damages to Tattoo Artist for Video-Game Depiction–Alexander v. WWE 2K (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

2K Games rejected similar infringement claims on the basis of de minimis use, implied license, and fair use. To briefly summarize, the court left the fair use question entirely to the jury, despite its own pre-trial order and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Google v. Tattoo Advertising/Human Billboards.

Blogging 144