Remove Cease and Desist Remove Designs Remove Settlement Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Trademark Infringement 101: What You Need to Know to Protect Your Brand 

Corsearch

Trademark protection is granted to any word, phrase, symbol, or design that conveys a specific brand identity, and it prevents other companies from using similar marks that could cause confusion among consumers and dilute the original brand’s value. Learn more about distinctive trademarks. Spoiler alert: It didn’t.

article thumbnail

Trademarks as a Barrier to Free-Speech: An Examination of the MetaBirkins Dispute

SpicyIP

This article seeks to examine how trademark law interacts with the freedom of expression of artists to choose the subject matters they wish to engage with, using the dispute between Hermès, a fashion industry giant and Mason Rothschild, a digital artist, as a contextual backdrop.

Trademark 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Preventing Trademark Infringement or Stifling Healthy Competition? A Look at 1-800 Contacts and its Keyword Advertising Battle

LexBlog IP

Starting in 2004 , the Company began issuing cease-and-desist letters to competitors, demanding that they prevent their search ads from appearing in response to the keyword “1-800 Contacts.” 1-800 Contacts also claims that Warby Parker copied its website design to “ intentionally deceive and confuse ” consumers.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 6- February 12)

SpicyIP

Can “honest concurrent use” be used as a defense against a trademark infringement claim? Lokesh, highlighting its history, argues that honest concurrent use is a principle of trademark law and is not limited to a provision. trademark trial over ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs. lawsuit over infinity-logo trademark.

Designs 52
article thumbnail

Meeting of the Minds: The Price of Recklessness: Disgorgement of Pro?ts in a Post-Romag World

The IP Law Blog

In Romag , the Court examined whether a plaintiff in a trademark infringement action is required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark to obtain a profits award. When settlement discussions proved fruitless, Romag sued. The Court found the argument intriguing but problematic.