Actions which impinge upon the monopoly granted by an Intellectual Property right are considered infringements.
Retailer allegedly created knockoff goods and acted as more than a hands-off intermediary. Australia-based online retailer Redbubble, Inc., could be directly liable for third-party sellers’ infringement of trademarks owned by the Ohio State University, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has held. Unlike online retailers or auction houses that typically had been found not…
NIKE no longer had a legally cognizable interest in the validity of the preliminary injunction. NIKE, Inc., was precluded from appealing a district court’s preliminary injunction issued in November 2019 barring the athletic footwear giant from using the phrase “Sport Changes Everything” in an advertising campaign, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond has ruled….
The record, however, supported that “Bayside Breeze” mark was not infringed by “Boardwalk Breeze” as a matter of law. In a trademark infringement suit between competing sellers of automotive air freshener products, a federal district court erred in finding on summary judgment that “Little Trees” brand products with a scent called “Black Ice” was not…
It is not common that local Indian companies sue multinationals for infringement in India – and win. However, recently, just that happened: Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (“Parle ”) sued multinational retail giant Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (“Walmart India”) at the Bombay High Court for violating its trademark/trade-dress when it launched a deceptively similar…
At the end of August 2020, the Russian competition authority (the “FAS”) issued two important decisions aimed at allowing a non-authorized import of trademarked products into Russia (so-called “parallel import”). Specifically, the FAS said that two major automotive producers violated competition law by restricting the parallel import of their parts from outside Russia. These decisions…
Costco raised triable issues of fact as to its liability for infringement and counterfeiting and whether its use of “Tiffany” to describe a ring style was fair use. The federal district court in Manhattan erred in concluding as a matter of law that Costco’s use of the word “Tiffany” to describe diamond engagement rings amounted…
In the wake of the UK High Court’s earlier ruling on the long-running SkyKick saga (following the CJEU’s decision), Lord Justice Arnold has, in his latest ruling, considered which party should bear the costs of the dispute, amongst other outstanding issues. Despite the Court’s decision to grant Sky’s application for injunction (to restrain SkyKick from…
On 2 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed down another decision which interprets the mercurial concept of ‘trade mark use’. Case C-684/19 – mk advokaten is a preliminary reference concerning unauthorised use of a sign in an online advertising context. The Court reaffirmed Daimler (C‑179/1- Daimler AG) in that…
Parties and Mark The defendant is an Amazon entity. It is responsible for Amazon’s keyword advertising on Google Ads (formerly Adwords). The plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the trademark BOSS in the perfume and cosmetics segment. One of the perfumes marketed by the plaintiff is “BOSS The Scent”. It ranks among the most successful…
On 20 May 2020, we received another decision in the long-running dispute between Merck KGgA (“Merck Global”) and their former US subsidiary (“Merck US”). This case dealt with the following five issues remitted by the Court of Appeal: Further consideration of partial revocation of Merck Global’s registered marks; Whether the activities of Merck US constitute…
