JD Supra Law

JULY 12, 2023

Branding, including acquiring and protecting your trademarks, is essential to growing your business and protecting against other companies getting a free-ride on your reputation and goodwill. In 2007, Louis Vuitton sought to stop the sale of dog toys named “Chewy Vuitton.” By: Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black

Trademark 52

Trademark Fair Use Branding Brands 52

Intellectual Property Law Blog

JUNE 16, 2023

7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” into “The Old No. The District Court rejected VIP’s contentions and enjoined VIP from manufacturing and selling its Bad Spaniels dog toy holding that when “another’s trademark is used for source identification,” the Rogers test does not apply and the test is whether the use is likely to cause confusion.

Fair Use 130

Fair Use Trademark Cease and Desist Designs 130

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

DECEMBER 11, 2023

MSCHF has frequently targeted major brands. 2007)) and the “ My Other Bag ” tote bag (Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. Following the Jack Daniel’s decision, to resolve whether the Rogers test applies, the Second Circuit had to determine if MSCHF used Vans’ marks as a mark for its own goods. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d

Blogging 112

Blogging Trademark Branding Brands 112

LexBlog IP

JUNE 16, 2023

7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” into “The Old No. The District Court also held that the fair use exclusion for parodies under the Lanham Act’s dilution provision did not apply where the use at issue does not serve as “a designation of source for the [alleged diluter’s] own goods.”

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Cease and Desist Trademark Designs 52

LexBlog IP

JUNE 16, 2023

7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” into “The Old No. The District Court also held that the fair use exclusion for parodies under the Lanham Act’s dilution provision did not apply where the use at issue does not serve as “a designation of source for the [alleged diluter’s] own goods.”

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Cease and Desist Trademark Designs 52

IIPRD

APRIL 21, 2021

Another remedy could be that the work in question is being used for a non-commercial purpose or that it falls under Section 52 of the Copyright Act [4]. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com. Modak & Anr on 12 December 2007. [4] References]. [1] 2] The Copyright Act, 1957.—Section

Intellectual Property 40

Intellectual Property Business Copyright Intellectual Property Law 40

Patently-O

DECEMBER 12, 2021

Missouri’s predominant purpose test, which inquires into whether the predominant purpose of using the famous person’s name or identity is to exploit its commercial value; or whether “the predominant purpose of the product is to make an expressive comment on or about a celebrity.” [15] 26] Which one? Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). [12]

Registration 69

Registration Government Advertising Advertising 69