article thumbnail

Finding the Real “Burger King”: Identical Marks & Prior Use in the Pune Eatery Case

SpicyIP

In response, the Pune eatery contended that there neither existed any similarity between both parties trademarks, nor did Burger King US provide its services under the contested trademark before 1992. Further, sub-section 3 provides that the confusion on the part of the public is assumed in such cases. Relying on Syed Mohideen v P.

article thumbnail

Trademark Infringement Get So “Lucky”

IP and Legal Filings

The Respondent secured federal trademark registration for “Get Lucky” in 1986, and the Petitioner commenced offering garments employing the registered trademark “Lucky Brand” and term “Lucky” a few years later, in 1990. This case saw the issuance of several marks.

Trademark 105
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

John Doe Order Issued Against “Taarak Mehta” Infringers: Revisiting the Rights Vested in Fictional Characters

SpicyIP

Leo Burnett (India) Private Limited (2003), which established an implied recognition of such a protection, and further expressly extended it to characters in comic books, such as “Nagraj,” and TV serials, against commercial misuse. The courts laid the early groundwork for the concept through decisions in V.T. Arvee Enterprises and Ors.

article thumbnail

Customs Intervention for IP in the Indian Sub-Continent

Kashishipr

36 of 2003 and The Customs Ordinance of Sri Lanka, along with a Government Gazette Notification Extraordinary No.1523/22 The Intellectual Property Act No. 1523/22 of 15.11.2007 issued by the Finance Minister, form the legal basis of Customs intervention for dealing with counterfeit products in Sri Lanka.

IP 105
article thumbnail

Beyond The Ordinary: The Rise in Use of Non-Conventional Trademarks in Pharmaceuticals Industry

IP and Legal Filings

The Registrar of Trade Marks (2017) , the Delhi High Court held Red Bull trademark for its distinctiveness as used blue-and-silver colour combination. [2] 2] This ruling reflected the judiciary is willingness to broaden the interpretation of trademark protection to include the non-traditional or non-conventional marks also.

article thumbnail

Protection of Color Trademarks under the Indian Trademark Law

Kashishipr

2003 (27) PTC 478 Del. A public survey was submitted as verification of this assertion, and the equivalent was granted on 1 st October 2012 after a long-drawn-out legal battle with the Swiss multinational food and drink processing conglomerate, Nestle. Colgate Palmolive Company vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt.

article thumbnail

Governance and Supervision of Trademark and Patent Agents: Discussing DHC’s Saurav Chaudhary vs. Union Of India

SpicyIP

Chapter XV of the Patent Rules, 2003 , CHAPTER XXI of the Patents Act, 1970 , PART IV of Trademark Rules, 2017 specifically deals with patent and trademark agents laying down a liability when the agents fail to do their responsibility. Fortunately, legislative solutions for this already exist, on paper at least.