Remove Designs Remove False Advertising Remove Service Mark Remove Trademark
article thumbnail

TM infringement and false advertising claims related to putative open source software "fork" succeed

43(B)log

It has trademark registrations for the word mark “NEO4J.” The parties previously partnered nonexclusively so that PureThink would sell and support the commercial version of Neo4j; upon termination, PureThink expressly agreed to “cease using any trademarks, service marks and other designations of Plaintiffs.”

article thumbnail

Dastar doesn't bar allegedly false advertising about source of planned development services

43(B)log

Defendants' letter allegedly copied text from LStar Trademark infringement: LStar never specified what its trademarks or service marks were. It argued that defendants copied, but didn’t identify a particular word, name, or symbol, or combination thereof, within the highlighted paragraphs, as the alleged trademark(s).

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

TM co-owner can't challenge uses authorized by other co-owners (bonus Lexmark reasoning)

43(B)log

The Giant agreement provided that the service mark “JADE” would be held exclusively by the Jade Group, that at no time would more than one member of the Jade Group appear on a non-Jade Group recording, and that no additional members would be added to the Jade Group without Giant’s consent.

article thumbnail

Trade Dress Protection: Laws and Its Relevance

IP and Legal Filings

This implies that the configuration and arrangement of shapes, designs, colors, materials that form the trade dress will not be protected if it serves a utilitarian purpose. However, trade dresses and their protection may fall under the ambit of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Law 52