Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I. Inc. 543 U.S. 111, 124 (2004) ("a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case, ... while the defendant has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion in raising the affirmative defense ...
Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Others, colloquially known as the DU Photocopy Case, was an Indian copyright law court case in the Delhi High Court filed by academic publishers Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis, against Rameshwari Photocopy Services and the University of Delhi, the former being a shop ...
Trademark owned by Philips in the European Union and various other jurisdictions, but invalidated in the United States due to it being merely a descriptive term. [1] [2] [3] Aspirin Still a Bayer trademark name for acetylsalicylic acid in about 80 countries, including Canada and many countries in Europe, but declared generic in the U.S. [4] Catseye
An accounting of profits is proper in a trademark infringement case only where the defendant engages in willful infringement, meaning that the defendant attempted to exploit the value of an established name of another. [45] Alternatively, a plaintiff may recover damages incurred if they show a reasonable forecast of lost profits.
Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the ...
Union of India & Others is a landmark decision by a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court on the issue of whether Novartis could patent Gleevec in India, and was the culmination of a seven-year-long litigation fought by Novartis. The Supreme Court upheld the Indian patent office's rejection of the patent application.
The landmark case for deciding on infringement cases in India is R.G. Anand, which laid out the following test: if "the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original" then the copyright has been infringed. [43]
The law of trademark in India before 1940 was based on the common law principles of passing off and equity, as were followed in England before the enactment of the first Registration Act, 1875. [3] The first statutory law related to trademark in India was the Trade Marks Act, 1940 which had similar provision to the UK Trade Marks Act, 1938.