IPilogue

FEBRUARY 14, 2022

Comparative advertising is an effective marketing technique, in which a company’s product or service is compared to its competitor’s. Despite these advantages, comparative advertising is a dangerous field to navigate from a legal perspective. In contrast, section 22 is more applicable to trademarks for services.

Advertising 105

Advertising Advertising Trademark Branding 105

43(B)log

MARCH 14, 2024

11, 2024) I have a long-running interest in Rule 68 offers of judgment, and this case involves an interaction with false advertising law! The parties compete in the shoe market. In 2006, Crocs sued now-plaintiff Double Diamond and Dawgs, its affiliate. Crocs, Inc., 2024 WL 1051951No. 23-cv-01790-PAB-KAS (D.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Branding 59

IIPRD

FEBRUARY 23, 2021

The risks include unauthorised use and infringement, technological obsolescence, and the marketable nature of IP as collateral. Trademark as Collateral in the US. In addition to registered trademarks at the USPTO, debtors can also pledge common law trademarks, which are trademarks not formally registered.

IP 40

IP Intellectual Property Branding Brands 40

Kashishipr

AUGUST 18, 2021

These intangible assets are often used in collaboration with other marks by the formation of a trademark portfolio, which consists of marks sharing a few characteristics and belonging to one entity. Characteristics of a Family of Trademarks. The purchasing audience must recognize the shared characteristics indicating a common origin.

Trademark 105

Trademark Registration Branding Brands 105

SpicyIP

DECEMBER 17, 2023

1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) related to computer software based on earlier guidelines of the patent office. Dabur India Limited vs Mi Lifestyle Marketing Global Pvt. the Court held that such usage would amount neither to infringement of the trademark, nor taking of unfair advantage of the Respondent’s mark. DRS Logistics (P.)

IP 59

IP Trademark Advertising Advertising 59

SpicyIP

JANUARY 2, 2022

The plaintiff was granted, through an agreement, an exclusive non-transferable, non-assignable license for selling, supplying, and distributing the defendant’s brands in domestic and international markets. This case involved Sun Pharmaceuticals allegedly infringing Cipla’s copyright and registered trademark.

IP 143

IP Intellectual Property Copyright Trademark 143