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
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No. 1125(c)(3)(A).
Despite this, conversations in the media and some academic circles around the CAB have largely focused on its provisions relating to L&Es, especially fairuse (for instance, see here , here and here ). Indeed, the CAB lives up to its core objectives as set out in its long title.
Their reuse of the underlying materials may (in theory) be excused under the doctrine of fairuse, including parody , or what is increasingly referred to as ‘ transformative use’ – a concept itself derived from the four fairuse factors called out in Title 17 (Section 107).
Copyright protects the producers of any original work, and is relevant to almost all businesses, not just those in the creative industry. Businesses regularly create articles, photographs, drawings, designs, models, websites, computer software, etc., Copyright is an automatic right that arises the moment a work is created.
The section 2(c) of the 1957 Copyright Act of India defines ‘artisticwork’ 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.,
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No.
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No.
The section 2(c) of the 1957 Copyright Act of India defines ‘artisticwork’ 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.,
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.
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.
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 fairuse to use the name of the religion from which the dissenters have parted.
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.
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 artisticworks beyond unforeseen barriers. ChatGPT , Smodin ), to perform music (i.e.,
VIP Products, on the other hand, argued that their toy was protected under the doctrine of “fairuse” 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
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.
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.
2 In the former case, the court moved from an apparent position of significant skepticism at oral argument to an affirmation of fairuse 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. §
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.
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