Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog

JULY 21, 2023

The section 2(c) of the 1957 Copyright Act of India defines ‘artistic work’ as any work that includes engraving, sculpture, painting, or a photograph. So what kind of works, provided they meet the requirement, qualify for copyright protection? In Alexander v. Take Two Interactive Software, Inc.,

Artistic Work 52

Artistic Work Ownership Copyright Infringement Copyright 52

IP and Legal Filings

JANUARY 22, 2024

Introduction The Intellectual property laws are designed in such a way that not only reward the creator of his intellectual creation thereby incentivising other creators for further innovation, while balancing the rights of the creator with the right of the society to access information or knowledge.

Ownership 52

Ownership Copyright Fair Use Intellectual Property 52

LexBlog IP

JUNE 20, 2023

Respondent VIP Products makes a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey. We hold only that it is not ap­propriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods—in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark.

Trademark 40

Trademark Designs Design Fair Use 40

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 19, 2022

Summary of current treatment: Although courts have often referred to “expressive” or “artistic” works as shorthand for the scope of Rogers, they have applied it to speech that quali?es Thus, it may not even be descriptive fair use to use the name of the religion from which the dissenters have parted.

Trademark Law 72

Trademark Law Trademark Art Brands 72

SpicyIP

JULY 29, 2021

Typeface’ refers to the particular design of letters, numbers, marks and symbols. That said, traditionally, ‘fonts’ and ‘typefaces’ were not used synonymously , and the distinction between them was relevant when letters made out of metal blocks were used for printing. Before we begin, let me lay down the glossary for this post.

Copyright 126

Copyright Artistic Work Copyright Law Law 126

Kluwer Copyright Blog

OCTOBER 17, 2023

Image from DALL-E 3 Introduction Generative AI is disrupting the creative process(es) of intellectual works on an unparalleled scale. More and more AI systems offer services that push users’ production capacity for new literary and artistic works beyond unforeseen barriers. ChatGPT , Smodin ), to perform music (i.e.,

Copyright 125

Copyright Art Copyright Law Licensing 125

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 1, 2023

VIP Products, on the other hand, argued that their toy was protected under the doctrine of “fair use” as it was being used in a non-trademark sense, and that it was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. Rogers , 875 F.2d ” Id. ” Id. In VIP Products v. Jack Daniels Products , 953 F.3d

Trademark 52

Trademark Intellectual Property Brands Branding 52

IP and Legal Filings

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

Artists are using virtual reality and augmented reality to create previously unimagined artworks. These artists’ works are undeniably unique and would be entitled to appropriate IP protection. The Metaverse comprises various technologies, each with its own IPR implications.

Trademark 52

Trademark Ownership Brands Branding 52

43(B)log

OCTOBER 4, 2021

In this recent case, Epic sought to register this design for "downloadable video game software"—the Loot Llama in Fortnite, which serves as a resource cache for players. They worked together for many years but Covid disrupted the relationship as PTRA decided to move the Rose Bowl to a state that wasn’t as worried about Covid.

IP 94

IP Trademark Advertising Advertising 94

Velocity of Content

NOVEMBER 25, 2024

2 In the former case, the court moved from an apparent position of significant skepticism at oral argument to an affirmation of fair use for the sale of home video recording devices (VCRs) as a dual-use technology capable of both infringing and substantial non-infringing uses. 48 § 21 (UK). ↩︎ See 17 U.S.C. §

Copyright 52

Copyright Derivative Work Intellectual Property Copying 52

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

JUNE 21, 2023

The other issue in Jack Daniel’s was whether VIP could invoke the “noncommercial use of a mark” exemption from dilution liability in 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(3)(C) by claiming its humorous use of the Jack Daniel’s marks was not pure commercial speech because it poked fun at the company in the Bad Spaniels design.

Trademark 105

Trademark Blogging Trademark Law Fair Use 105