Tag >> trademark
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in well-known marks, Well Known Marks, Trademarks, trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, Reputated Marks, Mexico, famous marks on
Oct 14, 2008
The Mexican statute provides explicit protection for well-known trademarks since the Law of Patents and Trademarks of 1976. Before the 1976 statute, there is evidence of direct application of the stipulations stated in Paris Convention to fill the gaps in the Mexican statute, but none of the published decisions refer to well-known trademarks. On June 16, 2005, the Federal Congress amended the Industrial Property Law to introduce important modifications to the provisions regarding the protection of well-known trademarks. Before the amendment, there were two ways a trademark could be acknowledged as well-known in Mexico: a) If the Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial or Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) rejected a trademark application, arguing that it was identical or
In a first-to-file country, such as Mexico, one way of foreseeing if a trademark is available for use and registration is conducting a trademark search with the databases of the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO). There are two main databases that may be consulted in a trademark search: the Industrial Property Gazette that the MPTO issues on monthly basis, and the online phonetic database of the MPTO. Foreign entities that offer search services usually obtain the information from the Industrial Property Gazette, while local agents often use the online database. Unlike the trademarks database of the USPTO or the OHIM, there is no free access to the trademarks database of the MPTO to conduct searches; it is necessary to have a prepaid account. A search conducted using the information
Posted by: Raja Selvam in Trademarks, Trademark use in India, trademark registration, trademark, Trade Marks, Selvam and Selvam, Selvam Selvam, India, Domain names, domain name tasting on
Sep 22, 2008
Introduction In 1964, when the world was brimming with fear of Cold War the American rulers, had a more all-encompassing problem – communication. They realized that the traditional technology of having a centralized system would not work. This fear mandated a need on the government to do something different - to develop a whole new scheme for post-nuclear communication. The technology, which was developed to communicate during nuclear war, was developed to so much an extent so as to cater even tracking of seismological phenomena, transmit pressing news bulletins, and send email to people. “It is an example of a technology with more uses than anybody ever imagined”. The Internet one uses today provides efficient and inexpensive communications between people around the world. More
Wipro Consumer Care and Lighting (WCCL) has won a High Court order against a Delhi local company which has been engaging in the manufacture & sale of bulbs under the mark SK Lamps which was deceptively and confusingly similar and an infringement of the trademarks of WCCL. The Delhi High Court also ordered the officials to search & seize the remaining stocks of SK lamps and stop production of bulbs.
The judgment comes in favor of WCCL increasing the number of its legal victories against trademark infringements & counterfeiting to two this year. During the month of May WCCL won another litigation against KK lamps causing it to shut down its operations for a similar trademark infringement.
“As the brand becomes more and more popular, it is becoming more susceptible to trademark offences. We
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in trademark, Trade Marks, Reyes Fenig, non use, Mexico, Maintenance Fees, law, lack of use, intellectual property, Cancellation on
Aug 06, 2008
There are two frequent questions I receive from foreign colleagues and Mexican businessmen regarding maintenance of Mexican trademark registrations. One is if it is required to file evidence of use of a trademark with the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) from time to time in order to keep a trademark registration alive. The answer is ‘no'. The other question is: If it is not required by the statute, why some Mexican trademark lawyers insist in this filing every three years? Since 1991 it is not necessary to file statements or evidence of use of a trademark with the MPTO in order to keep a trademark registration in force. It does not mean, however, that stopping using a registered trademark would not have negative consequences. If the use of a registered trademark is interrupted
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in Trademarks, trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, Patents, patent, Mexico, intellectual property, injunction, infringement, Application on
Jul 30, 2008
The marking of products or services that use industrial property rights (such as patents or registered trademarks), so third parties may be aware of the existence of such intangible assets, provides the right holders with certain benefits. The marking is not an actual obligation, given that failure to mark a product is not illegal by itself nor harms any third party's rights. Marking a product with the indication of an industrial property right may prevent or discourage third parties from infringing the intellectual property right associated to a product or service. If, in spite of the marking, a third party infringes the patent or trademark right, the measures available for the right holder are also stronger. There are certain rules about the marking of products provided in the Mexican
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, patent, Mexico, Lawsuits, law, intellectual property, infringement on
Jul 19, 2008
Section 221 Bis of the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL) provides that the owner of a patent or registered trademark (there are no common-law rights in Mexico) is entitled to claim from the infringer as damages and/or lost of profits at least 40% of the retail price of each infringing product sold by the defendant. The reason of such stipulation is not only to provide monetary relief to the right holder but also to punish the infringer. Further, section 221 of the IPL states that the right to file a damages claim is independent from the administrative penalties that the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) may impose to the infringer of the corresponding patent or registered trademark. For some years, the federal courts of appeals ruled that sections 221 and 221 Bis of the IPL
The Trademark Department of Israel had issued a Decision in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company (Delaware Corporation) and its refusal to limit several words of its trademarks applications by a Disclaimer. A disclaimer demand requires the Applicant to claim that the trademark rights given to the Applicant sare limited and only refer to the combined names and marks of the Applicant's application (e.g. receiving trademark of the combination "Lady Stick" rather of each word individually). This refusal has led to a debate relating to two supposedly complimentary clauses in the Trademarks Law: Clause 21 and Clause 47, debating whether Clause 47 contains the described in Clause 21. Clause 21 specifies the Patent and Trademark Office's right to demand that the Applicant adds a disclaimer
MH Foods, owners of the trademark American Dry Fruits, has filed a lawsuit with the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against ice-cream maker Vadilal Industries to prevent it from using the trademark for its range of ice cream.
MH Foods contends that Vadilal has not changed its trademark despite repeated warnings. Advocate of MH Foods, Avesh Kayser of Kayser & Company, said: "We had sent a notice to Vadilal and they asked for a period of six months. However, since they failed to take any corrective steps, we have filed a suit against them."
MH Foods claimed it has exclusive intellectual property rights to the name ‘American Dry Fruits' since it has been selling dry fruits, sweets and namkeens since 1932.
"Last year, Amul was forced to stop using the brand name after MH Foods legally challenged
After a battle of two years, eBay, the online auction site, lost in a French trade mark case and has been ordered by the Paris Commercial Court to pay 40 million Euros to Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (the LVMH group). The LVMH group claimed that eBay had damaged the LVMH reputation by selling counterfeit products in its website. The court accepted their claim and pointed out that not being able to keep counterfeit goods off its site indicate that eBay has 'serious faults' in the way it runs the site. Another argument which was also accepted by the court and claimed by the LVMH group related to perfumes eBay sells on its site. The LVMH group claimed that even the sell of authentic goods on the site should not be allowed, as selling genuine goods harm and infringe LVMH's exclusive
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
