Remove what-is-likelihood-of-confusion
article thumbnail

Inferring Secondary Meaning from Product Design Copying

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch In patent law, product copying can serve as indirect evidence of non-obviousness. A pending petition before the Supreme Court asks a similar question in the trademark realm – to what extent does copying of a product serve as evidence of secondary meaning of the product associated trade dress.

Copying 58
article thumbnail

Hot Take on the Wavy Baby Decision (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

MSCHF has frequently targeted major brands. by guest blogger Christine Haight Farley Because it is grading season, when I read the Second Circuit’s per curiam decision in Vans, Inc. MSCHF Prod. Studio, Inc. LEXIS 32063 (2d Cir. 2023), I already had my red grading pen out. A previous pair of shoes, “ Satan Shoes ,” prompted a suit by Nike.

Blogging 112
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Brand Identifiers are Key to Managing Competition

azrights

The brand name and codes play an important role in the management of competition. Inevitably competitors will try to capture some of the market shares of any brand that discovers a lucrative market opportunity. Some will copy blatantly, others are more savvy so will copy what they calculate they can get away with.

article thumbnail

Logos Remain Relevant: Source Confusion and Design Patent Infringement

Patently-O

As the court made clear, while logos are often key for avoiding consumer confusion about product source in the trademark sense, the absence of source confusion does not necessarily preclude a finding of design patent infringement. For trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, likelihood of consumer confusion is a key requirement.

article thumbnail

Does Anyone Here Have A Sense Of Humor, Redux: Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Oral Argument

LexBlog IP

Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark infringement claims. She continued: “Parodies can be confusing. If so, you should not have a dog.

article thumbnail

Does Anyone Here Have A Sense Of Humor, Redux: Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Oral Argument

LexBlog IP

Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark infringement claims. ” She continued: “Parodies can be confusing.

article thumbnail

Delhi High Court grants injunction against ‘dialmytrip’ in MakeMyTrip India Private Limited v. Dialmytrip Tech Private Limited

SpicyIP

Image from here The High Court of Delhi, by its interim ex-parte order dated 21 November 2023 , granted the prayer of ‘makemytrip’ and issued interim injunction against the mark ‘dialmytrip’. I shall provide an overview of the order and offer comments in this post. Facts The petitioner, MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt.