Search results

Article type




42,474 results found for your search

Sort options
12 May 2008

Gucci, Chloé and Dunhill awarded over $4 million in damages

In Gucci America Inc v, a federal district court has awarded over $4 million in damages to Gucci America Inc, Chloé SAS and Alfred Dunhill Ltd. Even though the complaint alleged that the defendants had sold 424 different types of counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiffs' marks, the court relied on "the functional purpose of the product" and identified only six broad categories of goods.

09 May 2008

'Enterprising' cybersquatter ordered to transfer 12 domain names

In Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v Bedford, a Canadian Internet Registration Authority panel has ordered that David Bedford transfer 12 domain names including the word 'enterprise' to Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company. Among other things, the panel found that Bedford had registered the domain names in bad faith.

20 June 2008

GALVALLOY and GALVALLIA are confusingly similar, says CFI

In Usinor SA v OHIM, the CFI has annulled a decision by the Board of Appeal of OHIM in which the latter had upheld an opposition to the registration of the mark GALVALLOY. The court held that there was a likelihood of confusion between GALVALLOY and the earlier mark GALVALLIA for galvanized metals, notwithstanding - or perhaps because of - the specialized nature of the relevant public.

17 June 2008

Virgin has no legitimate interest in VIRGIN mark for beverages

In Virgin Enterprises Ltd v Café La Virginia SA, the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters has held that Virgin Enterprises Limited had no legitimate interest in registering the trademark VIRGIN for goods in Classes 32 and 33 (beverages) on the grounds that it had entered into an agreement not to use the VIRGIN mark for foodstuffs at any time.

16 June 2008

No likelihood of confusion between ROCKLETS and LOCKETS

The Intellectual Property and International Trade Court has reversed a Board of Trademarks decision in which the latter had found that the mark ROCKLETS for chocolate confectionery was confusingly similar to Mars Inc's trademark LOCKETS for similar goods. Among other things, the court held that there was no likelihood that consumers would be confused as to the origin of the goods.

13 June 2008

Toshiba triumphs in Supreme Court following 19-year battle

In Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v Tosiba Appliances Co, the Supreme Court has held that Indian company Tosiba Appliances Co had failed to show that it would be injured if Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba's trademark TOSHIBA were allowed to remain on the register. The decision ended a 19-year battle between Toshiba and Tosiba Appliances.

11 June 2008

Black & Decker triumphs in Dubai's highest court

Black & Decker Corporation has triumphed in a counterfeiting case before the Dubai Court of Cassation. Dubai's highest court affirmed decisions by the Dubai Court of First Instance and the Dubai Court of Appeals in which the latter had sentenced three individuals to payment of a fine of Dhr5,000 each and confiscation of the seized goods.

10 June 2008

Pick 'n Pay is crocked by Crocs

In Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of South African Revenue Services, the High Court has refused to set aside a warrant for the seizure of Crocs shoes imported by Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd. Among other things, the court held that the magistrate had correctly found that there were reasonable grounds for believing that an act of counterfeiting had taken, was taking or was likely to take place.

09 June 2008

When does a copy not constitute passing off?

In T-Rex Véhicules Inc v 6155235 Canada Inc, the Quebec Court of Appeal has held that although T-Rex Véhicules Inc had a valid trademark right in the design of its T-Rex three-wheel vehicle, there was no likelihood that consumers would be led to believe that the defendants' G-2 vehicles and the T-Rex vehicles came from the same source.

17 October 2008

Quality of counterfeit product is irrelevant, says Court of Appeal

In a case involving fake Nokia mobile phone covers, the Madrid Court of Appeal has held that the accused was guilty of design and trademark infringement in violation of Articles 273(3) and 274(2) of the Criminal Code. Among other things, the court held that the quality of a counterfeit product is irrelevant when analyzing whether use of a trademark or design constitutes a criminal offence.

17 October 2008

Scotch whisky recognized as geographical indication

The Chinese Trademark Office has recognized scotch whisky as a geographical indication by registering it as a collective trademark in China. The Scotch Whisky Association may now enforce its rights over the SCOTCH WHISKY trademark in respect of products that are sold as scotch whisky but are not manufactured in Scotland.

16 October 2008

Procedure to promote consistent examination announced

The US Patent and Trademark Office has announced a one-year pilot project to promote consistency by providing applicants with a mechanism to bring the inconsistent treatment of applications to the attention of the office. The mechanism is intended to address inconsistent treatment between or among an applicant's own applications.

15 October 2008

SAM EDELMAN is confusingly similar to EDELMAN, says TTAB

In a precedential opinion, the TTAB has affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark SAM EDELMAN for goods in Class 18 on the grounds that there was a likelihood of confusion with the registered trademark EDELMAN for Class 18 goods. Among other things, the TTAB held that consumers could view EDELMAN as an abbreviated version of SAM EDELMAN.

14 October 2008

Denial of Section 37 relief affirmed in dispute over COHIBA mark

In the latest instalment of the ongoing battle over the ownership of the COHIBA trademark in the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court's denial of a motion filed by the defendants and has laid the groundwork for the case to proceed back to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, where the controversy between the parties began in 1997.

14 October 2008

Nike kicks out HIKE from register

The registrar of trademarks has ordered the cancellation of the trademark HIKE for clothing on the grounds that there was a likelihood of confusion with the well-known trademark NIKE. Among other things, the registrar held that the slight visual and aural differences between NIKE and HIKE, as well as the marginal differences in marketing channels, were insufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion.