Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A risk of trade mark infringement occurs when a registered trade mark is used as a keyword by a third party to link its website to promote its goods and services, which creates confusion in the minds of the consumers about the source of the product.”
The Court unanimously stated that the Comptroller was right in determining that the appellant was not entitled to apply for the patents simply by his ownership of DABUS.
This is a case where the Intellectual Property Office of Japan has found itself at the receiving end of infringement and imitation by unscrupulous Defendants. The defendants’ use of the identical mark and logo would be violative of the Plaintiff’s goodwill and brand equity.
The agreement between the parties is not a contract between an employee-employer or a manager-sportsperson contract, rather they are commercial contracts entered into between parties with equal bargaining power and for mutual commercial benefit. Thus, the agreements between the parties are neither ‘excessively one sided’ nor they impose a ‘bondage’.
The Court opined that whether a mark is common to trade or not is a question of fact. Similarly, a mark may be a trademark in some jurisdictions and ‘publici juris’ in others, but a mark that may be common to trade at one time may become distinctive over a period, or vice versa.
The Court noted that the Trial Court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the available materials on record vis-à-vis the trademark’s usage and nature of the business carried out by the parties.
Affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit), the Court with a ratio of 7:2 held that first fair use factor as under 17 US Code §107(1) favours Lynn Goldsmith and not AWF.
Transliteration is the conversion of a text from one script or alphabet to another, as opposed to translation from one language to another. Shorter Oxford Dictionary 5th Edition defines ‘transliteration' as a noun to mean rendering of letters or characters of one alphabet in those of another.
In Lulu v. Coolulu trademark dispute, the Karnataka High Court chided the competent authority for not considering the nuances of the dispute properly, which meant that the impugned order did not show even a semblence of application of mind.
Delhi High Court: In the present suit filed by the Plaintiff against Defendants and other parties who are unnamed, technically
The Supreme Court of Canada was deciding a dispute between Nova Chemicals and Dow Chemicals, where the issue revolved around accounting of profits as a remedy for patent infringement.
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal filed by ‘Vogue Institute of Management’ challenging the Trial Court’s permanent injunction
The trademark RAJNIGANDHA has been declared as a well-known mark by this Court and is entitled to a high degree of protection. The impugned mark is visually and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark.
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant matter concerning copyright infringement, the Bench of Niral Mehta, J., observed that a
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Livspace Pte. Ltd. (‘plaintiff 1') and Home Interior Designs E-Commerce Private Limited
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Tata Sia Airlines (‘plaintiff') seeking decree of permanent injunction against company selling
Delhi High Court: In a case relating to two marks being ‘Theobroma’ (‘defendant’) and Theos (‘plaintiff’), based out of Bombay and Delhi
European Court of Justice (ECJ): In a far-reaching decision, the Bench of C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S.
Authored by Elizabeth Verkey and Jithin Saji Isaac
Supreme Court of The United States: While deciding the patent dispute between Minerva Surgicals and Hologic Inc., the Court made certain significant