Gopal Joshi’s Post

United Penza Distilleries, which produced vodka and Nemiroff tinctures, plans to start production of Demiroff spirits, follows from the data of Rosaccreditation. The company received declarations of conformity for Demiroff De Luxe bitter tincture "Honey with pepper on lime honey" and Demiroff De Luxe special vodka. Earlier, the owner of the Nemiroff brand (with its main production in Nemirov, Vinnytsia region of Ukraine), announced the revocation of the license for the production of beverages in Russia after the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The Demiroff brand for alcoholic beverages was registered at the end of 2023. Renaming may not get rid of claims from Nemiroff and threatens to reduce sales, experts warn. Patent attorney, managing partner of Zuykov and partners Sergey Zuykov believes that changing the first letter is unlikely to solve the problem, and the owner of the Nemiroff brand can continue the proceedings. As judicial practice has shown, Russia continues to protect the intellectual property rights of foreign companies, regardless of the country of origin. In addition, renaming to Demiroff may also be a consequence of an agreement between the parties. As Mr. Zuykov points out, in this case, a settlement agreement must be concluded, which is approved by the court. Well-known alcoholic brands with Ukrainian roots have already been renamed in Russia: for example, in 2022, the plants "Rodnik and K" and "Russian North", which produced vodka "Khortytsia" and "Morosha", launched the brands "Horta" and "Lesnaya Morosha". #ip #russia #trademark #vodka https://lnkd.in/d3yBka-6

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to register the proposed trademark "CHILL" for "hard cider" due to the likelihood of confusion with an identical mark registered for "beer." MetaBev, the applicant, argued that more evidence was needed to show the relatedness of the goods. However, the Board found that the evidence presented demonstrated that the goods were related, and rejected the argument that the products targeted different consumers or were sold in different areas of stores. The Board also dismissed the lack of evidence of third-party use of similar marks for beer, as it did not impact the strength of the cited mark. Ultimately, due to the identical marks, related trade channels, classes of purchasers, and highly related goods, the Board affirmed the refusal under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. The differing treatment of third-party registration evidence was noted, emphasizing that extent of use is crucial for attacking the strength of a mark but not for demonstrating relatedness of goods.

The importance of businesses considering how to protect their intellectual property has been highlighted this week when the “David” - Steve White of Dark Sky Brewery - was attacked by the “Goliath” of Campari accusing him of infringing their trade mark... Mr White had applied to register the trade mark “Dark Sky Brewery” in relation to beers only available in a small number of pubs in county Durham. Campari have a registered trade mark “Skyy Vodka” in relation to their vodka brand. Mr White decided it prudent to apply for a trade mark to protect his brand. But by doing so Campari were alerted and opposed his application on the basis that consumers may get confused between its vodka and Mr White’s beers. Quite sensibly the Intellectual Property Office threw out Campari’s objection and have allowed Mr White to register Dark Sky Brewery as a trade mark. It is imperative that businesses always consider how to protect their intellectual property. If you have questions regarding this subject, please get in touch with Howard Ricklow, who specialises in Intellectual property, Data protection , technology, media and sports law. Read the full story 👉 https://loom.ly/A6Z8zj8

The growth of online platforms for food delivery has opened up new opportunities for food entrepreneurs in India. With this rise, investors are showing greater interest in the Indian food and beverage sector, leading to increased funding and the need for intellectual property rights protection for brands operating in the food industry in India. In this article, Compliance Calendar ® traces the case history and key takeaways of a landmark suit of trademark infringement involving Domino's Pizza, while also highlighting the need to protect your trademarks in the food industry.

Here’s another shot of our Case Analysis Series. While sipping the ounces of knowledge, let’s understand the concept of Smart Copying with the case of Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Hermes Distillery Private Limited (2024). Indian whisky market, Allied Blenders & Distillers (ABD), the owner of the globally renowned whisky brand Officer's Choice (commonly known as 'OC'), initiated a lawsuit against its competitor, Hermes Distillery Private Limited. The case focused on allegations of trademark infringement and passing off, with the primary issue being whether the similarities between the trademarks were sufficient to constitute an infringement and affect the distinctiveness of the Officer's Choice brand. This dispute underscores the critical importance of trademark protection and brand identity in the competitive spirits industry. The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's arguments, emphasizing that the comparison of two products or labels should be based on similarity rather than identity. This similarity should be evaluated from the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. The court further observed that the defendant had engaged in "smart copying," imitating the broad overall features of the plaintiff's label while intentionally omitting specific elements. The court determined that the defendant’s focus on minor differences between the labels actually underscored their overall similarity, with the differences being too trivial to matter. Consequently, the court prohibited the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale whisky or any other liquor products under the contested label. However, the injunction did not prevent the defendant from using the red and white color combination, provided it was done in a way that would not cause confusion, deception, or imitation of the plaintiff’s mark/label ‘OFFICER’S CHOICE’. Below is the link for the Original Judgement: https://lnkd.in/dyhscRyp Below is the link to the Case analysis: https://lnkd.in/dDjmwqzn #pna #pnaipattorneys #ipr #caseanalysis

Trademarks- Importance of Substantiating User Claims reiterated by the Trade Marks Registry In a recent trademark case, the Trade Marks Registry, Delhi reiterated the importance of substantiating the user claim for registration of marks, and refused to grant registration to the Applicant, holding that they had failed to provide any cogent evidence in support of their user claim and that the evidence submitted was not able to prove the user claim in question. In this informative read, Pranit Biswas, Managing Associate and Titiksha S., Associate at SSRANA & Co., render the analysis of the case and also deliberate as to why substantiating user claim of trademarks in opposition proceedings is of paramount importance. #ssrana #trademark #trademarkfiling #trademarkapplication #trademarkindia #trademarkuse #trademarkuser #trademarkuserclaim #trademarkopposition #trademarkregistry #indiantrademarkregistry

From Prohibition to modern regulations, you may be surprised to learn the history behind how we've regulated spirits over the past century! Including things like... 🍾The fascinating history behind this Prohibition-era regulation 🍾 How it shaped modern liquor bottle standards 🍾 The current regulations which ensure your drink is exactly what you paid for Today, we're spilling the tea (or should we say spirits?) on bottle regulations! 👉 Check out our blog for the full story: https://lnkd.in/e6YFKFWR #Spiritsindustry #Packagingindustry #SpiritsPackaging #bottling

Safeguarding Spirits: The Crucial Role of Brand Protection in the Liquor Industry! The liquor industry stands tall as a significant revenue source for state governments, making brand protection a linchpin for continuous success. The battleground extends beyond the quality of the spirits; it's about safeguarding the brand name and maintaining an unassailable position at the point of sale. In this dynamic landscape, where liquor consumption in UP alone hits a staggering INR 115 crores daily, the threat of infringement looms large. The battle isn't just about bottles on the shelf; it's about ensuring that every pour contributes to the revenue stream. Point of sale intricacies play a pivotal role. Similar names and labels vying for attention at the same counter can lead to confusion and revenue leakage. The target customer demographic adds another layer, with infringers strategically targeting those who make their choices based on appearance rather than substance. To shield against such threats, liquor companies must be proactive in opposing and legally challenging infringers. The power of public search cannot be overstated – a vigilant eye on the market landscape can prevent inadvertent missteps and protect the brand's integrity. Let's raise a toast to the resilience of the liquor industry and the commitment of brands to uphold their identity. In the spirit of progress, let's navigate the complexities, oppose infringements, and ensure that every drop poured contributes to the rightful revenue stream. P.S: DUCTUS LEGAL does not own any liquor brand or engage in such trade. The image is solely for illustrative purposes #LiquorIndustry #BrandProtection #RevenueStreams #LegalAction #MarketVigilance

CROSS BORDER REPUTATION IN TRADEMARK LAW: The trademark dispute between the global fast-food giant Burger King Corporation and a Pune-based restaurant using the same name highlights the importance of cross-border reputation in trademark law. Burger King argued that their trademark, well-known internationally, should be protected in India due to its cross-border reputation. This concept allows a globally recognized brand to claim rights over its trademark in a jurisdiction even if it hasn't operated extensively there, based on its worldwide recognition. The court noted the extensive use and recognition of the "Burger King" mark globally and its potential to cause confusion among consumers if used by other entities within India. However, the Pune restaurant countered this argument by emphasizing its local, prior, and continuous use of the name before Burger King Corporation's entry into the Indian market. The Pune court eventually ruled in favor of the local entity, rejecting the global company's claim based on the earlier use and the established reputation of the local business in the region. This case illustrates the complexities of balancing local rights with the cross-border reputation of global brands. The courts had to carefully weigh the local entity’s prior use against the global reputation of Burger King, eventually allowing the local business to retain its name. #intellectualpropertyrights #ipr #trademarks #tm #iplaw

𝐑𝐞𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 🍻 ☑️ The Delhi High Court has restrained Jagpin from using recycled Devans bottles for its Cox 1000 Strong Premium Beer. ☑️ Both parties are beer manufacturers, while Devans is prior to the market game. Devans holds registration for both the ‘DEVANS’ mark and the design of beer bottles. ☑️ Jagpin’s beer products were found bottled in 'DEVANS' glass bottles, potentially obtained through market recirculation. ☑️ The court opined that Jagpin’s use of bottles labeled 'DEVANS' for selling 'COX' beer constitutes trademark infringement. Additionally, reusing Devan’s bottles for selling beer under the 'COX' mark would also violate the registered design of the bottle. ☑️ The court ordered Jagpin to compensate INR 2 Lacs for the damage caused to Devans. Case - Devans Modern Breweries Limited v. Jagpin Breweries Limited, CS(COMM) 173/2022 #devans #jagpin #beer #trademarkinfringement #design #lawupdates #photonlegal