Remove 2004 Remove Artistic Work Remove Brands
article thumbnail

Bombay High Court Rules that Copyright Registration of a Label is not Compulsory

Kashishipr

SSPL was incorporated in 2004. Under Section 2(c) of The Copyright Act of 1957 , the label is an original artistic work. When SSPL was incorporated in 2004, SK Oil Industries had assigned it the label’s copyright. When SSPL was incorporated in 2004, SK Oil Industries had assigned it the label’s copyright.

article thumbnail

Authorship of photographs and ownership of image rights in Nigeria: Banire v NTA-Star TV Network Ltd

The IPKat

is it the actual user of the photograph under a licence arrangement or the licensor or both); the author of a photograph as an artistic work; whether passing off applies to images/photographs; and what to establish to succeed in a claim for passing off relating to image rights. VMNL) or both that person and their licensee (i.e.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

Not all marketing of artistic works is noncommercial speech. So, were Sony’s statements, “a brand new album from the greatest artist of all time” with “9 previously unreleased vocal tracks performed by Michael Jackson,” commercial speech? 4th 135 (2004); cf. citing Hustler v. Falwell and Mattel v. citing Rezec v.

article thumbnail

Growth of Virtual Youtubers and IP Complications

IIPRD

The law doesn’t specify 3D or 2D characters as copyrightable, but they can be covered under artistic works as per Section 13 of the Copyright Act. To identify such fictional works, we generally rely upon two tests Character Delineation Test [10] and Story being told Test. [11] 10] Nichols v Universal Pictures Co, 45 F.2d

IP 52
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 05- February 11)

SpicyIP

Read Tejaswini’s post on the recent DHC order concerning these two liquor brands. They filed a suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement against the defendant after discovering that they were selling household products under the name, ‘SUFIYAMA’, using a similar trade dress and artistic work. Defendant no.