The High Court has upheld a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office finding that the application for TRUMP TV, filed by ‘trademark troll’ Michael Gleissner in the name of Trump International Limited, had been made in bad faith.
In Beiersdorf AG v Koni Multinational Brands (Pty) Ltd, the South African High Court has considered the use by one party of a get-up that was a composite of various get-ups used by another party.
The Israel Patent and Trademark Office has considered an interesting dispute concerning several marks registered in the name of two major Russian confectionery manufacturers for sweets from the Soviet era.
A dispute between Bega Cheese and Kraft Foods in Australia has been resolved with the Federal Court awarding Bega the exclusive rights to use a distinctive yellow, red and blue packaging to market its peanut butter.
A recent case in India has addressed the question of whether a licensee can claim rights in a licensed mark when faced with the termination of the licence agreement.
In Swagway LLC v International Trade Commission, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that trademark decisions of the International Trade Commission, like its patent decisions, do not have preclusive effect.
In a dispute between wine and spirits producers Kantina and Adol, the Slovenian Supreme Court has set aside the first and second-instance decisions, which had rejected a non-infringement action filed by Kantina on formal grounds.
The UK Intellectual Property Office has issued a somewhat unexpected decision in a case involving an application for the label mark GLENFIELD by an India-based drinks company owner, which was opposed by Scotch whisky distiller William Grant & Sons.
In Lupu v EUIPO, the EU General Court has confirmed that, within the context of opposition proceedings, relative grounds for refusal cannot be raised after the expiry of the term prescribed by law.
In Sköld v Galderma Laboratories LP, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has addressed the issue of trademark ownership under since-terminated development and commercialisation agreements.
Spain’s EU Trademark Court has upheld a first-instance decision in which Equivalenza Retail SL had been sentenced for infringing various trademarks, owned by Hugo Boss, Gucci and Lacoste, among others, in the context of its smell-alike business.
The Swiss Federal Administrative Court has considered an opposition filed by US tech giant Apple against Swiss watchmaker Swatch’s application for the registration of the mark TICK DIFFERENT for Class 14 goods, including jewellery and watches.
A jury in the US has found that Australian Leather wilfully infringed a trademark registered to Deckers Outdoor Corporation. The defendant has vowed to appeal, with one member of its legal team calling on the Australian government to intervene.
The Venezuelan IP Office has introduced a new payment method involving paying cash deposits at a specific bank branch. Experts describe the process as complicated and have warned of significant risks.
The decision of the Delhi High Court in Curewell Drugs & Pharmaceuticals v Ridley Life Science creates a strict action plan from the moment that a drug and its packaging are created.