article thumbnail

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

Kashishipr

Under Section 2(c) of The Copyright Act of 1957 , the label is an original artistic work. In May 2007, the label mark ‘SOYA DROP’ was registered. According to SSPL, this practice was dishonest as it could make NTC benefit from the reputation and goodwill of SSPL’s brand name. Defendant’s Response.

article thumbnail

Can Celebrity Catchphrases be Intellectually Protected?

IIPRD

However, outside the realm of brand marketing, when celebrities make use of a phrase, to the point of it becoming associated to them, it becomes a catchphrase of their own. She trademarked the term in February 2007, and since then, it has become her “signature catchphrase.” They ended up settling the case outside the court.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

IPR infringement in yellow-and-blue logo: Lidl wins High Court dispute against Tesco

The IPKat

However, this argument did not satisfy the Court, which on the contrary, specified that it was those characteristics that are specific to Lidl’s brand. Copyright The Court also established that Lidl’s mark was protected by copyright as an original artistic work under Section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

article thumbnail

Copyright Violation

IP and Legal Filings

Copyright is a crucial right endowed to the formers of any artistic work, it needs to be protected by a process named ‘copyright violation’ which encroaches upon the exclusive rights given to the copyright holder. Copyright violation refers to when an unauthorized user infringes the original work of another individual.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

Intellectual Property Law Blog

7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” into “The Old No. 5] When counsel for VIP argued that the dog toy was a parody that poked fun at a brand which “took itself too seriously,” Justice Kagan responded: “You make fun of a lot of marks: Doggie Walker, Dos Perros, Smella Arpaw, Canine Cola, Mountain Drool. 58 (2007)). [14]

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” into “The Old No. 5] When counsel for VIP argued that the dog toy was a parody that poked fun at a brand which “took itself too seriously,” Justice Kagan responded: “You make fun of a lot of marks: Doggie Walker, Dos Perros, Smella Arpaw, Canine Cola, Mountain Drool.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” into “The Old No. 5] When counsel for VIP argued that the dog toy was a parody that poked fun at a brand which “took itself too seriously,” Justice Kagan responded: “You make fun of a lot of marks: Doggie Walker, Dos Perros, Smella Arpaw, Canine Cola, Mountain Drool.