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
.” In other words, they sought to establish (using centuries-old chattel-based theft doctrines rather than trademarklaw) that a trademark owner has the unrestricted right to shut down anyone using their trademarks, even if no consumers are harmed. to see if it could find some soft spot in Georgia state law.
A Family settlement agreement (FSA) was concluded wherein Abhishek Lodha was appointed as the CEO of the Lodha Group (later renamed Macrotech). He also argued that the FSA stipulated that Abhinandan could not use the TM or brand name Lodha in any manner whatsoever. 500 crores (disputed figure).
Trademark infringement is the nightmare that keeps big brands up at night. In a world where maintaining a distinctive identity and protecting consumer trust is a constant battle, safeguarding your trademarks is crucial. What is trademark infringement? Let’s start with the basics; what is trademark infringement?
This is generally done by giant corporations and brand names to survive the competition and swallow the small businesses for gains. The modus operandi of bullying and legal threats which are baseless by large entities gets initiated by serving a cease and desist notice which contains threats of instituting a trademark infringement suit.
Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures offers tandem skydiving under the “Fyrosity” brand. Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. It has never offered its services through Groupon.
BONUS : Plaintiffs allege that the marketing rights that Stevens and Hughes purchased from Google and Facebook directed searches for the Blaux brand to [link] where Stevens and Hughes sold products that competed with the Blaux portable air conditioner. McNeil Consultants, LLC , 2021 WL 3508713 (5th Cir. DFO Global Performance Commerce Ltd.
This decision thus raises questions about the scope of powers granted under the state’s excise laws and their intersection with trademarklaw. This unclear delineation of responsibility for determining similarity raises important questions about the consistency of such assessments under both excise and trademarklaws.
Farmer , the founder of Leading Edge Law Group, PLC , in Richmond, Virginia, has for more than 25 years written a monthly column for the Richmond Times on breaking legal issues in the e-commerce, intellectual property and high-tech fields. He also lectures annually for the Virginia bar on trademarklaw developments. pdf here ].
This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. The defendants bought competitive keyword ads on Adler’s trademarks, which Adler objected to. LBF (& Vice-Versa) * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v.
Understanding IPR law enables “legally aware entrepreneurs/techno-entrepreneurs” to navigate these complex transactions and negotiate favourably. Neglect of IPR law can lead to unintentional infringement, resulting in costly legal disputes.
.” In June 2021, the Second Circuit overturned a decision by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) that 1-800 Contacts violated antitrust laws by enforcing its trademark rights against online competitors. Alternatively, should trademark owners have a responsibility to aggressively protect their intellectual property?
I raised this taxonomical issue with the Network Automation case , which involved niche-y job scheduler software where a consumer who is new to the niche might not know the various brands when starting a search. 1-800 Contacts * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v.
If anything, the Second Circuit musings give the parties more to fight over, rather than providing enough clarity to estimate the Coase Theorem entitlement and facilitate a settlement. Monaghan Trademark Owner Sues Over Alleged Twittersquatting–Coventry First, LLC v. Kravitz An Update on PhoneDog v.
1-800 Contacts * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. Amazon * More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning * Court Dumps Crappy Trademark & Keyword Ad Case–ONEPul v. 1-800 Contacts * Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad Purchases–Lasoff v.
Lokesh, highlighting its history, argues that honest concurrent use is a principle of trademarklaw and is not limited to a provision. trademark trial over ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs. Samsung to pay $150 mn to Nanoco Tech in QLED patent suit settlement. lawsuit over infinity-logo trademark.
Will they get the message? * * * Background Lerner and Rowe is an Arizona law firm. Brown Engstrand is a start-up rival law firm (operating under the brand “Accident Law Group”). 1-800 Contacts * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v.
lululemon’s brand also displays prominently in its keyword ads. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. Labeled search results.
The Menace of Different Drugs with Similar Trade Names What if we tell you that there is a drug that is used for treating diabetes, but has a similar/ almost identical brand name as another drug used for treating a type of cancer. However, for CS(COMM) 162/2022 & 171/2022 the plaintiffs alleged that there was no settlement as on date.
This ruling helped resurrect trademark owners’ interests in threatening others engaged in competitive keyword advertising, despite no persuasive evidence that keyword-triggered confuse consumers unless they have confusing ad text. This a Tom Sachs painting from his recent series of brand paintings. Is this explicitly misleading?
A brand’s name, particularly when it takes the shape of a trademark, can define its identity, reputation, and value, making it an asset that is valuable to safeguard. Trademarks are unique “marks”, names, symbols, signs, words or phrases that define a brand or company’s products or services.
This is a review of the new book, Research Handbook on the History of TrademarkLaw , edited by Lionel Bently (University of Cambridge) and Robert G. The volume would fit nicely under a normal-sized Christmas tree Readers of this blog know that trade mark law is rife with new developments and heated debates.
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