Summary of the facts: The plaintiff is a subsidiary of “MAYO” Clinic, a well-known charitable organization based in the United States. They operate internationally and have a strong reputation under the mark “MAYO” for providing medical care, research, education, and diagnostic services. The plaintiff holds trademarks for "MAYO” and related marks in India and over … Continue reading WHETHER PRIOR USAGE AND REGISTRATION OF THE MARK SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION?
DOES DUBBING OF A REMAKE CONSTITUTES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL MOVIE?
Introduction: The case of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs MS Sithara Entertainment and Ors. was heard by a Single Judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The key issue in this case was whether the dubbing of a movie, based on assigned copyright work, by another person, to whom separate rights were assigned, constituted infringement. … Continue reading DOES DUBBING OF A REMAKE CONSTITUTES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL MOVIE?
How to set up a company in the USA
Starting a company in the United States can be an exciting and rewarding endeavor. However, the process involves careful planning, legal considerations, and adherence to specific requirements. It is possible for individuals and businesses from India to establish a company in the USA, but the procedure can be intricate and time-consuming. It entails complying with … Continue reading How to set up a company in the USA
TRADEMARK PARODIES: FAIR USE OR INFRINGEMENT? ANALYSING USA SC JUDGEMENT JACK DANIEL’S V. VIP PRODUCTS
Introduction Trademark law plays a crucial role in protecting the intellectual property rights of businesses and ensuring consumer confidence in the marketplace. The Lanham Act, the core federal trademark statute in the US, serves to safeguard trademarks by preventing infringement and dilution. In the case of Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the … Continue reading TRADEMARK PARODIES: FAIR USE OR INFRINGEMENT? ANALYSING USA SC JUDGEMENT JACK DANIEL’S V. VIP PRODUCTS
IS PHONETIC SEARCH IS NECESSARY ALONG WITH WORD SEARCH FOR A REGISTRATION OF A TRADEMARK?
Introduction A phonetic search is also necessary along with word search before registering a trademark as observed by Justice C. Harishankar deciding the case Institut Europeen D Administration Des Affaires ,INSEAD, Association v. Fullstack Education Private Limited & Anr[1]. In this suit, the petitioner moved to court for rectification of the Trade Marks Register by … Continue reading IS PHONETIC SEARCH IS NECESSARY ALONG WITH WORD SEARCH FOR A REGISTRATION OF A TRADEMARK?
CASE WHERE BLINKIT NAME WAS IN DANGER
INTRODUCTION: The case[1] is a miscellaneous first appeal filed under order 43 Rule 1(r) read with section 104 of CPC against the order passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In the following impugned order the judge had allowed the application filed by the Respondent –Plaintiff for temporary injunctions and restrained the Appellant – … Continue reading CASE WHERE BLINKIT NAME WAS IN DANGER
CASE OF TATA WATER PLUS V. TAZA WATER PLUS
INTRODUCTION: The present case[1] pertains to the copyright and trademark infringement of the plaintiffs’ mineral water product sold under the mark “TATA “and “TATA WATER PLUS.” The Plaintiffs discovered that Defendant was selling bottled drinking water in August 2020 using the trademark "TAZA WATER PLUS"; therefore, Plaintiff hired a private investigator to determine the precise … Continue reading CASE OF TATA WATER PLUS V. TAZA WATER PLUS
Producer or the author of the screenplay, who owns the copyright?
Introduction: The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant through its dealers, distributors, employees and/or assigns from making and selling, any work indulged in the novelization of the cinematograph film NAYAK. As per the plaintiff, novelization of the screenplay NAYAK without the consent of plaintiff amounts to … Continue reading Producer or the author of the screenplay, who owns the copyright?
CASE OF TRADEMARK CANCELLATION AFTER REGISTRATION: P BROS V. FYBROS
Introduction: A petition was filed[1] under section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for the removal of the mark “P BROS”. The mark P BROS is registered in the favour of the respondent no. 1. Notices were issued to the respondents and were accepted by them, however, no appearance was made by the Respondent … Continue reading CASE OF TRADEMARK CANCELLATION AFTER REGISTRATION: P BROS V. FYBROS
Whether the mark “Maharaja” is Publici Generis and what are the requirements under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
PLAINTIFF[1]: The plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1956 that manufactures, sells, markets and trades plastic-molded furniture, including individual and group seating systems, dining gardens, and other related goods falling under Class 20. Initially, the plaintiff operated the aforementioned goods and business under the name Baker Industries Pvt. … Continue reading Whether the mark “Maharaja” is Publici Generis and what are the requirements under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
DUCTUS EDGE 