Remove 2016 Remove Copying Remove Designs Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Concludes Direct Copying Can Be Evidence of “Secondary Meaning” for Trade Dress Infringement 

LexBlog IP

The court concluded that JSC’s unique designs acquired secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers in the furniture market, particularly because of Trendily’s copying, and possessed protectable trade dress. JSC designs high-end furniture hand-crafted by woodworkers in Indonesia. Trendily appealed.

Copying 52
article thumbnail

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 with reference to Maharashtra

IP and Legal Filings

Government of India enacted the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 and the act came into force with effect from May 1, 2017. The following are the essential components of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: Establishing Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Software Downloads Netflix & Disney+ Videos to Make DRM-Free Copies

TorrentFreak

Long before the advent of legitimate online video streaming services, torrent sites and similar platforms allowed users to download and keep copies of movies and TV shows. Aside from living up to the significant functional claims in its marketing, the big questions revolve around legality. Subscriber Agreements.

Copying 116
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions.

article thumbnail

Tattoo Trouble for Video Game Creators

IPilogue

In the verdict form the jury stated that Defendants had not proven fair use, the Plaintiff (Alexander) should receive $3,750 USD for actual losses from the Defendant’s use of the tattoo designs, and did not answer as to profits can be attributed to the Plaintiff for use of the tattoos. Citing Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc.,

Fair Use 112
article thumbnail

When Do Defendants Have Access to Copyrighted Works Posted to the Internet?–Cooley v. Target Corp.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The plaintiff, NOC, is a teenager who has copyrighted designs in hand-drawn dots that Target allegedly copied in the clothing line. However, Target’s allegedly infringing works apparently were designed no later than December 2017. The work was also posted to Facebook and Instagram in 2016. Case Citation : Cooley v.

article thumbnail

Fourth Circuit Issues a Bummer Fair Use Ruling–Philpot v. IJR

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In 2016, the defendant IJR published an article/listicle titled “15 Signs Your Daddy Was a Conservative.” Philpot sued in 2020 over the 2016 IJR publication, i.e., after the 3 year statute of limitations that no one seems to care about post-Petrella. (In ” Market Effect. Larry Philpot is a repeat copyright plaintiff.