Monday, November 15, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
US Trademark Commissioner Beresford To Retire
US Trademark Commissioner Beresford To Retire: "United States Trademark Commissioner Lynne Beresford has announced she will retire on 30 December, according to the US Patent and Trademark Office. Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations Deborah Cohn will succeed Beresford and assume her new position as of 31 December.
Related Articles:
"Monday, October 25, 2010
European Ruling Could Reshape Collective Copyright Levy System
European Ruling Could Reshape Collective Copyright Levy System: "In a ruling expected to rock Europe’s controversial copyright levy system, the European Court of Justice held on 20 October that governments may impose fees on digital reproduction equipment to compensate rights holders only when the devices are likely to be used for private copying.
Related Articles:
"Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
WTO Paragraph 6 Meeting Aims At Improved Use Of Health Waiver
WTO Paragraph 6 Meeting Aims At Improved Use Of Health Waiver: "The agenda has been circulated for the upcoming annual World Trade Organization review of an amendment to international IP trade law that has so far failed to increase access to needed medicines for the poorest economies. It shows a deeper look at existing measures and opens the possibility of new solutions to the issue.
Related Articles:
"Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
L'OREAL vs. VLCC
There seems to be a dispute between the above mentioned companies with regards to the mark 'FUEL'. VLCC seems to have acquired the mark from a businessman, Mr. Mahesh Chaudhary int he year 2006.
L'oreal is reported to have acquired the same fromt he same individual. If true, both of these companie shave been duped. The next question is whether they can co-exist within the ambit of Section 12 of the Trademarks Act, 1999?
A hearing is scheduled at the Delhi High Court in the future....
L'oreal is reported to have acquired the same fromt he same individual. If true, both of these companie shave been duped. The next question is whether they can co-exist within the ambit of Section 12 of the Trademarks Act, 1999?
A hearing is scheduled at the Delhi High Court in the future....
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
INDIA JOINING THE MADRID PROTOCOL
The Lok Sabha, the lower House of the Indian Parliament has passed an amendment to the Trademarks Act wherein the country could sign the Madrid Protocol within the next year.
This is huge step forward as it would enable MNC's to file for trademark protection in India using the Madrid system. In the current economic scenario where we see Indian Companies forging ahead with Merger & Acquisition, this move could prove to be beneficial for Indian Companies as well.
This is huge step forward as it would enable MNC's to file for trademark protection in India using the Madrid system. In the current economic scenario where we see Indian Companies forging ahead with Merger & Acquisition, this move could prove to be beneficial for Indian Companies as well.
Monday, January 18, 2010
BHARTI WAL MART FACES HURDLES
The Bharti Wal-Mart joint venture in India is facing problems with the trademarking of some of its food products.
In 2008 the company filed applications to register its Great Value (GV) label with a logo to the Indian Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks.
It has been reported that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks office did not grant either the logo or the trademark to Bharti Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has successfully registered the GV brand in other countries without incident, and the company has already launched several GV products in India without having the appropriate trademark registration for the products.
Bharti Wal-Mart has also filed several applications seeking to trademark ‘Indian-sounding' names, such as Sankskar, Sabhyata, Cimran, Pranay, Srishti and Jovaki, but the company faced opposition to most of these applications
Monday, January 4, 2010
NIVEA WINS
Nivea, a global skin- and body-care brand owned by Beiersdorf Company of Germany, has prevailed in its trademark dispute with Yingzi Cosmetics Co., Ltd. The Beijing People's No. 2 Intermediate Court ruled that although Yingzi's "OUMEINA" trademark is not identical to Beiersdorf's "NIVEA" trademark, the pattern, word arrangement and wrapping were similar enough to cause customer confusion and constitute trademark infringement.
Yingzi argued against customer confusion, asserting that Nivea is not a well-enough known brand in China, that the marks "NIVEA" and "OUMEINA" are not similar, and that the respective customer classes are different (e.g., the respective brands have different price ranges and are carried in different stores). Yingzi also argued that the Nivea wrapping is typical cosmetics wrapping, and therefore did not distinguish Beierdorf's products.
Nevertheless, the court ruled against Yingzi, because the respective brands are used in the same industry and in association with same product type. Moreover, although the marks are different and the wrapping is arguably generic, the decorations (colors and shapes) on Nivea's wrapping are sufficiently unique to cause customer confusion where Yingzi's wrapping decorations were similar. The court ordered Yingzi to pay damages of RMB120,000 to Beiersdorf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)