Evoke Law, PC’s Post

Protect your marks and taglines. While use is the basis of protection from other’s profiting from your company’s assets, it may not be sufficient. Registering a trademark or copyrighting a phrase gives you the ability to license it to authorized partners and to protect it from being used for profit by others. While it is not blanket ownership it does help to define your brand space. You want people to think of your company’s product or service when they see or hear those words or images, not someone else’s. #brandbuilding #creativity #innovation #protectandpromote

Understanding Trademarks: Key Legal Information and Protections for Your Brand Trademarks are essential for protecting a brand's identity and ensuring that consumers can distinguish between different products and services in the market. This article provides comprehensive information on trademark laws, legal protections, and the steps necessary to secure and enforce your trademark rights. What is a Trademark? Trademarks are symbols, names, words, phrases, logos, designs, or combinations thereof that distinguish the goods or services of one party from those of others. They are critical for establishing brand identity and ensuring that consumers can identify the source of a product or service. Key Components of Trademark Law Exclusive Rights: Trademark law grants the owner exclusive rights to use the mark in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered. This includes the right to prevent others from using a similar mark that may cause confusion among consumers. Registration: While trademark rights can be acquired through use, registering the trademark with th... #brandidentity #IntellectualProperty #LegalAdvice #legalhelp #LegalResources #protectyourbrand #TrademarkInfringement #trademarklaws #trademarkprotection #trademarkregistration #Trademarks

Background: The plaintiffs (respondents in appeal) sought a permanent injunction to stop appellant from selling, distributing, manufacturing, and advertising products that featured a combination of a numeral and an alphabet. This combination, when used with their primary trademark 'TECHNOBRITE,' had become a source identifier for their products. The plaintiffs argued that appellant, GTZ, was using these alpha-numerals to leverage their established goodwill and mislead consumers into thinking GTZ’s products were theirs. The appellant’s defense: 1. Section 17(2)(b) of the Trademark Act: This section stipulates that if a trademark includes elements that are common to trade, the trademark's registration does not grant exclusive rights over these common elements. The appellant contended that the alpha-numerals were part of the plaintiffs' trademark and couldn't be claimed exclusively. 2. Anti-Dissection Rule: This rule mandates that trademarks should be considered in their entirety, not dissected into individual components when determining exclusivity and infringement. The appellant argued that alpha-numerals were inseparable from overall trademark ‘TECHNOBRITE’ and should not be protected independently. The Court's Decision: The court rejected the appellant’s arguments, interpreting the anti-dissection rule and its exceptions. It acknowledged that while trademarks are generally considered as a whole, certain circumstances justify protecting a component if it is recognized as a source identifier. The court determined that plaintiffs had shown that specific alpha-numerals used with ‘TECHNOBRITE’ were unique identifiers for their products. This justified an exception to anti-dissection rule, allowing protection over these alpha-numerals, even without separate trademark registration. Section 17(2)(b) of the Trademark Act: Section 17(2)(b) aims to prevent monopolization of common trade elements, ensuring fair competition by not allowing exclusive rights over generic components of a trademark. However, application of this section requires careful balancing. In this case, strict adherence to this provision could undermine the distinctiveness and goodwill associated with a composite trademark. The Anti-Dissection Rule: The anti-dissection rule is fundamental in trademark law, promoting a holistic view of trademarks to avoid unfairly challenging their distinctiveness. However, the court’s ruling demonstrated that the rule has inherent flexibility. When a component of a composite trademark gains significant market recognition as a source identifier, it may be afforded individual protection. [The information shared here aims to serve the public interest. Readers' Discretion is advised as it is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.] Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] #IPAdjutor #Legalupdate #IPUpdate #Indiaip #IPlaw #Iplawyer #Ipadvocate #LegalNews

Clients often ask why they should register their trademarks. There are multiple reasons, but one important reason is that in court proceedings registered trademarks are entitled to certain rebuttable presumptions that make things easier for the trademark owner. Now-Casting Economics, Ltd. (“NCE”) and Economic Alchemy LLC (“EA”) provide services related to economic “nowcasting,” (attempting to predict present economic conditions). NCE started marketing its services in February 2011. EA secured trademark registrations for "NOWCAST” and “NOW-CAST” in May 2013. The registrations claimed a date of first use of January 2012. EA sent NCE a notice letter in 2016 (why, if NCE began use in 2011?). In March 2018 NCE filed a lawsuit against EA seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. EA counterclaim for, among other things, trademark infringement. The Trademark Office cancelled EA's registrations in January 2020 (from the Trademark Office's records it is unclear if this was for failure to file maintenance documents or as a result of a cancellation proceeding brought by the Federal Reserve Bank). In September 2022, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of NCE and ruled that there was no infringement. EA appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals explained that a party asserting trademark infringement for an unregistered mark must prove that it has the right use the mark. Once that showing is made, the party must establish (1) that the mark is distinctive and (2) that there is the likelihood of confusion. EA argued that the district court erred by placing the burden on EA to prove infringement. However, in a declaratory judgment action the party seeking protection of the mark has the burden to prove infringement. SEA does not and cannot convincingly argue otherwise. Thus, EA had to come forward with evidence showing its marks were entitled to protection. EA took the position that its prior registration met this burden. The court disagreed, noting that “[a] certificate of registration with the PTO is prima facie evidence that the mark is registered and valid (i.e., protectible), that the registrant owns the mark, and that the registrant has the exclusive right to use the mark in commerce,” and that those presumptions disappear once the registrations are cancelled. What's more, the court of appeals found that NCE came forward with evidence to rebut the presumption (it was the first user of the marks), and that EA did not present any contrary evidence. Interestingly, EA has two other pending applications for NOWCAST in the Trademark Office. The Federal Reserve opposed those applications; proceedings in those oppositions were suspended pending the outcome of this case. I would expect the proceedings to be resumed soon. #IntellectualProperty #IP #trademarks #trademarkinfringement #BusinessLaw #LegalInsights #OffitKurman

Legislative norms do not provide for the possibility of recognizing multiple exclusive rights for the same amount of legal protection of a mark, since this would contradict the absolute nature of the exclusive right and would entail the impossibility of separating a trademark as an object of civil rights, i.e. it would lead to the so-called "double registration". For example, the IP Court refused to satisfy the requirements for invalidation of Rospatent's decision to refuse state registration of a trademark under application No. 2014712526. Earlier, Rospatent decided to refuse state registration of the designation "SOUTHERN GARDEN", and applied for registration as a trademark under application No. 2014712526 addressed to the applicant because the applicant at the time of applying was already the right holder of the trademark "SOUTHERN GARDEN" according to certificate No. 517703 (Resolution of the Presidium of the SIP dated 02 May 2017 in case no. SIP-711/2016). The decree of the Presidium established that "trademarks in which the differences are so insignificant that the consumer may not notice them cannot be qualified as a series of trademarks." To avoid rejection due to "double registration", trademarks must have differences, which may consist of color combination, compositional arrangement of elements, font design, the addition of new elements, as well as in the list of goods and services (items of goods/services that are available in early registration should be excluded). This practice is often used by large companies that have a big package of trademarks in their portfolio. Thus, a series of trademarks are registered in various color combinations – mainly a designation in the corporate style and in black and white. Read more in the article by Maria Dvornikova, a patent attorney and a trademark specialist at Zuykov and partners. #trademark #registration https://lnkd.in/dFY_mR6X

Whether you're a small business owner, a recording artist, or a social media influencer, trademarks can an essential part of your business plan. Below is a very short blog post discussing the basics of trademark filing. If you need assistance with filing a trademark, or other related issues, please reach out to Sanjay S. Karnik, who leads our Trademark, Copyright, and Brand Protection practice group. #trademark #copyright #brandprotection

In the competitive landscape of modern commerce, a company’s brand is one of its most valuable assets. Protecting this brand under English law involves a multifaceted approach. Here are the critical steps companies can take to safeguard their brand effectively. https://lnkd.in/ey2nqgsc #companies #Brand #IP #litigation #trademark #copyright #EnglishLaw

𝘾𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨! 𝙃𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙠 𝙮𝙚𝙩? 𝙄𝙩'𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮—𝙞𝙩'𝙨 𝙘𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙙-𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙩. In this article, learn everything from the basics of what constitutes a trademark to the step-by-step process of registering one. Learn how to conduct a trademark search to avoid conflicts, navigate the application process smoothly, and protect your brand on a national scale. Stay informed and proactive—your business deserves it! https://lnkd.in/gTVzB9g2  . . . #SmallBusiness #Trademarks #BrandProtection

Introduction: Trademark opposition proceedings are governed by strict procedural rules to ensure fairness and efficiency in resolving disputes. Central to these proceedings are the timelines prescribed for filing evidence and serving documents on opposing parties. This article explores a recent legal case highlighting the significance of adhering to mandatory timelines in trademark opposition proceedings and the consequences of non-compliance. Legal Framework: Trademark opposition proceedings in India are regulated by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Trademarks Rules, 2002. Rule 50 of the Trademarks Rules, 2002 outlines the procedure for filing evidence in support of opposition and sets forth the timelines within which such evidence must be submitted. The language of Rule 50 indicates the mandatory nature of these timelines, with no discretion afforded to extend the deadlines unless directed by the Registrar. Case Analysis: The case at hand involves an appeal wherein the Appellant failed to serve evidence in support of opposition on the Respondent No. 1 within the prescribed timeframe. While the evidence was filed with the Trade Marks Registry before the expiration of the deadline, the delay in serving the evidence on the opposing party resulted in a breach of procedural requirements. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the rejection of the opposition, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the timelines prescribed in Rule 50 of the Trademarks Rules, 2002. Court Ruling: The court's ruling reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the timelines stipulated in Rule 50 of the Trademarks Rules, 2002. Despite the absence of a specific provision in the 2017 Rules regarding extensions of time, the court held that the deletion of discretionary powers from the Rules further underscores the strict adherence to prescribed timelines. The court reasoned that the language of Rule 50 leaves no room for interpretation, as the use of terms such as "one month aggregate" and the removal of discretion clearly indicate the mandatory nature of the timelines. Implications: The court's decision in this case has significant implications for trademark opposition proceedings. It underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements, particularly regarding timelines for filing evidence and serving documents on opposing parties. Failure to adhere to these mandatory timelines may result in adverse consequences, including the rejection of oppositions and potential loss of substantive rights. Case Title: Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs Dabur India Ltd. Order Date: 09.02.2024 Case No. C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022 Name of Court: Delhi High Court Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:946 Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh H.J.

Introduction: Trademark protection is fundamental to safeguarding the distinctiveness and reputation of brands in commerce. However, disputes often arise when trademarks are allegedly diluted through widespread use or inaction by the trademark owner. This article analyzes a recent legal case where the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's trademark had become generic due to the plaintiff's failure to object to third-party usage. Background of the Case: The case at hand involves an appeal filed by the defendant against an order granting interim injunctions to the plaintiff in a trademark infringement dispute. The plaintiff, holding the trademark "SHAKTI," sought to restrain the defendant's use of a similar mark, "MS SHAKTI." The defendant argued that the plaintiff's inaction against other parties using similar marks implied that the mark had become generic and common to trade. Legal Analysis: The central legal issue in this case revolves around the concept of trademark dilution and the standard for proving genericness. Trademark dilution occurs when a mark loses its distinctiveness due to extensive use by third parties or failure to enforce trademark rights. However, establishing genericness requires more than mere inaction by the trademark owner. The court's dismissal of the defendant's argument underscores the principle that non-action by the plaintiff against other parties does not automatically render the mark generic. Rather, the defendant must provide evidence to substantiate the claim of genericness. In this case, the court rightly held that the defendant failed to present prima facie material demonstrating that the mark "SHAKTI" had become generic in the trade. Conclusion: Trademark disputes involving allegations of dilution require careful consideration of legal principles and evidence. The recent case discussed highlights the significance of substantiating claims of genericness through proper evidence, rather than relying on the plaintiff's inaction alone. Case Title: Maruti Ispat & Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chetna Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Order Date: 23.02.2024 Case No. O.S.A (CAD).Nos.122 and 123 of 2023 Neutral Citation:2024:MHC:6521 Name of Court: Madras High Court Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Sanjay Gangapurwala and Bharatha Chakravarthy, HJ Disclaimer: Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney, Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph No: 9990389539