Search

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products, which highlighted the complexities of trademark law in relation to First Amendment rights, especially regarding the use of parody in artistic expressions. Topics include the implications of the Jack Daniel's decision on trademark and speech, the limitations of current trademark law in protecting expressive uses, and the necessity for a broader fair use defense in trademark dispute.

The article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Jack Daniel's v. VIP Products, which established that trademark use, particularly when indicating the source of goods, does not receive special speech protections under the Lanham Act, regardless of expressive elements. Topics include the bright-line rule for trademark use, the distinction between trademark and non-trademark use, and the implications of the ruling for future trademark law and expressive works.

The article summarizes the concluding remarks of the second panel at the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal Symposium, highlighting the discussions surrounding trademark law and parody implications following recent court decisions. Topics include the potential increase in cease-and-desist letters from trademark owners, the complexities of determining trademark use, and the overall impact on the future of trademark rights and parody protections.

The article details the discussions from the second panel of the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal Symposium, focusing on the Bad Spaniels case and its implications for trademark law, particularly concerning the intersection trademark protections. Topics include the concept of likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement, the application of the Rogers test for expressive works, and changes in trademark owners' rights regarding parody and artistic expression.

Marketing firms navigate a dynamic environment characterized with volatility and complexity, where survival hinges upon adaptability and responsiveness to external forces. The pursuit of rapid growth, profit and competitive advantage in the cosmetics market often leads some companies to engage in unlawful and unethical practices, including copyright and trademark infringement and misleading marketing, which creates problems for honest consumers and the entire industry's sustainability and leads to legal cases of fraud. This has led to the emergence of a specific type of marketing ‒ forensic marketing, characterised by a thorough check (often in a legal context) of all the facts and data accompanying marketing policy. This study examines how forensic marketing dimension influence the consumer behavior using the case study of 3 skincare products in Nigeria, including the impact of copyright violation on brand awareness, trademark infringement on consumer patronage, and the impact of misleading advertising on consumer loyalty. In solving this problem, the article analyses the provisions of the Theory of Buyer Behaviour, the Nicosia Model and the Psychoanalytic Model. The study is based on the results of an online survey of 384 Nigerian consumers of cosmetic skincare products (a five-point Likert scale was used for answers, Bill Golden technique was used to determine the sample size, Cronbach's Alpha test was used to confirm reliability, and SmartPLS software was used for data processing). Descriptive (frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and skewness) and inferential (structural equation modelling (SEM) by utilising the partial least squares (PLS) version) analyses were carried out. The modelling empirically confirms the validity of all three hypotheses: 1) respondents perceive copyright infringement as having a significant relationship with brand awareness, with the strongest impact on a product idea, moderate impact on brand name, and weak impact on promotion strategy; 2) trademark infringement practices have a significant impact on consumer patronage, with design having the strongest impact, signs and symbols having a moderate impact, and colour having a weak impact; 3) deceptive marketing practices have a significant impact on customer loyalty, with advertising having the most significant impact, product quality having a moderate impact, and labelling and packaging having a weak impact. The article emphasises the importance of regularly informing consumers about the quality and features of products, as well as encouraging whistleblowers through reward systems. By adopting ethical marketing practices, companies can build a reputation that will ultimately benefit society, strengthen their reputation, and influence consumer purchasing decisions.

This article considers the problem of sentencing disparity in Thailand which could have potential impact on criminal cases of copyright and trademark infringement. At present, the Thai Courts rely on sentencing guidelines to prevent sentencing disparity, but different Courts in different parts of Thailand have formulated and used different sentencing guidelines, so the guidelines produced by different Courts have different standard of sentencing. This could result in a wide disparity in the sentences that the Courts impose on the infringers who commit the same offence, so this article proposes that the relevant provisions and the uniform national sentencing guideline like that of the US approach should be developed and introduced into the Thai legal system, so that the judges overseeing the criminal cases in the Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases and the Supreme Court of Thailand could rely on such provisions and uniform national sentencing guidelines to prevent sentencing disparity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Parliament of India amends and makes and unmakes the law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), does not merely decide a lis in personam but also declares the law on a question that it decides to answer. The law so declared by the Supreme Court becomes binding in rem by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, the Constitution). The Supreme Court, by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. In the second and third decades of twenty-first century, the Supreme Court has, on an average, decided 1.86 (point eight six) cases in a year, or one trademark case in 196.07 (point zero seven) days, or one case in .53 (point five three) year. A review of the reported decisions on the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter, the Trade Marks Act) reveals that the Supreme Court has: (i) delivered a total of 27 decisions including a few decisions in which the Trade Marks Act finds only a reference; (ii) declared trademark law and iron out the creases of law by interpreting the text of the statutes; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was brought before it; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Division Bench (21 cases) constituting 77.77 (point seven seven) percent, followed by Full Bench (5 cases) constituting 18.51 (point five one) percent, and 1 by Single Bench constituting 3.7 (point seven) percent; and (vi) decided only one trademark case by a Single Bench which is reported from the third decade of this century. A total of 39 judges were on the bench deciding the 27 trademark cases. It has been observed that no sitting Chief Justice of India was on the bench in any of the trademark cases. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the papers covering patent law, copyright law, design law and trademark law in twentieth and twenty-first centuries published under the theme„IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court). This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law declared by the Supreme Court in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law. These constitutional powers of two branches are related but separate. The Supreme Court in the first decade of 21st century has delivered 23 decisions on the trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided 2.3 (point three) trademark cases in a year; or one trademark case in 158.82 (point eight two) days or in .43 (point four three) years. A review of reported 21st century decisions reveals that the Court has: (i) declared trademark law in 17 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was brought before it; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; and (v) decided maximum number of cases by Division Bench (21) and remaining 2 cases by Full Bench. It is also observed that no sitting or acting Chief Justices of India was on the Bench in any of the cases. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed in the first four papers on patent law, copyright law, design law and trademark law in twentieth-century published under the theme 'IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court'. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in the first decade of the twenty-first century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In early 2023 a United States (US) court ruled that a crypto art collection named “Metabirkins”, which depicts the famous “Birkin” bag of Hermès in several colorful motives, infringes the trademark rights of the fashion house on its signature accessory. This ruling conferred Hermès the power to ban the commercial exploitation of Metabirkins by their designer, through a permanent injunction order. By the time that order was issued, however, several Metabirkins had already been sold to third parties, allegedly for considerable prices. Taking this case as a point of reference, the paper at hand aspires to examine crypto art transactions from the perspective of EU intellectual property (IP) and consumer protection law. First, it clarifies the conditions under which the purchasers and licensees of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) fall under the consumer concept. Subsequently, it examines whether the critical facts would constitute a trademark infringement in the EU legal order, and what would have been the impact of such an infringement on the rightful use of the controversial NFTs by their right-holders. Finally, the paper presents the rights granted by Directive 2019/770 to consumers in case they are supplied with digital content bearing legal defects, and comments upon their applicability and enforcement in the blockchain ecosystem. In this discourse, the paper takes a stand on the following contemporary issues: a) What is an “NFT artwork” from the perspective of EU IP law?, b) Is non-fungibility equal to originality?, c) Are NFT artworks subject to IP exhaustion?

The Parliament of India makes, amends, and unmakes law. The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, the Supreme Court), under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, declares the law and makes and unmakes the law while deciding cases through the process of judicial review and interpretation-construction. The constitutional powers of these two branches are related but separate. The law made by the Parliament stands constitutionally valid unless declared uconstitutional, eviscerated or read down by the Supreme Court. As the analyses reveals, theconstitutionality of none of the seven intellectual property (hereinafter, IP) enactments has been challenged before the Supreme Court in any of the cases brought before it. Had the constitutionality of these statutes been challenged even then the statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the person who challenges the validity of the statute and any provision thereof has a heavy burden to discharge. The Supreme Court ordinarily interprets-constructs the provisions of the statute and applies the same to decide the question(s) of lawand/or question of facts in a lis between the parties before it. The answer of the Supreme Court becomes bindingnot only in personam but also in rem for the future cases. Among all the IP cases decided by the Supreme Court, trademark law may be called as the King of IP decisions with maximum number of reported decisions followed by copyright, patent and design laws. The first trademark case was decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1953, after 1196 days (3.27 years) of its establishment. In 20th century, the Supreme Court has decided a total of 19 cases on trademark law. On an average, the Supreme Court has decided .38 (point three eight) trademark case in a year; orone trademark case in 978.94 (point nine four) days or in 2.68 (point six eight) years. A review of reported decisions of 20th centuryreveals thatthe Court has: (i) declared Trademark Law in 15 decisions; (ii) not only interpreted the provisions of the statutes but has also constructed them; (iii) not declared anything on the constitutionality of the trademark statutes as no such question of constitutionality was involved; (iv) delivered all the decisions unanimously as no dissenting or concurring judgment is reported; (v) decided maximum number of cases by Full Bench (11) and remaining 8 decisions by Division Bench. It is also observed that two Chief Justices of India and one Acting Chief Justice were on the Bench in three decisions, but the judgment was authored only by the Acting Chief Justice. Paper proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and adopted in the first three papers covering patent law, copyright law and design law published under the theme „IP Laws Declared by the Supreme Court?. This Paper seeks to cull out the principles of trademark law as declared by the Supreme Court in 20th century decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-sale confusion theory-which refers to the public's confusion about a product's source when seeing the product postsale- is a theory of liability that famous brands often assert to enforce their trademark rights, but the justification for courts' rulings on post-sale confusion claims has received surprisingly little scholarly attention. Under post-sale confusion theory, a plaintiff can claim trademark infringement on the grounds that passersby who see the defendant's product in public would mistakenly think that the product originated from the plaintiff because the mark on the defendant's product looks confusingly similar to the plaintiffs trademark. But what is the harm in this type of consumer confusion? Why should trademark law aim to prevent post-sale confusion from occurring? This Article presents the first systematic study of the rationale for courts' rulings on post-sale confusion claims. This Article offers three contributions. First, the Article accounts for the ways in which post-sale confusion arises to show that, contrary to courts' assumptions, post-sale confusion does not necessarily yield a harm to the trademark owner or to consumers. Second, the Article presents an empirical analysis of the relationship between courts' findings for each factor of the multifactor test-a test that courts apply to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion-and the case outcome. Notably, the Article finds that the defendant's intent factor has a disproportionately large effect on the case outcome. Third, the Article shows that courts have adopted a moral-based rationale that is primarily concerned with punishing the defendant for intending to profit from the plaintiff's trademark, rather than with preventing consumer confusion or a loss of sales. The Article argues that courts should return to the rationale of facilitating a competitive market for quality products that has been at the core of trademark law. To do so, the Article argues that courts should limit liability to only the instances where the existence of post-sale confusion causes an economic harm to the plaintiff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Paper identifies and analyses the theoretical underpinnings of trademark law in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court of India (here in after, the Court). Outcome of analysis is four-fold. One, only the Utilitarian Theoryhas been invoked by the Court and that too not explicitly but only by implication to justify trademark law. Two, judicial ratiocination mainly hinges on two grounds that trademark law maximizes happiness by directing unwary customer to the source of goods or services, and minimizes the pain of unwary customer by protecting her from actual or likely deception or confusion as to the source of goods or services. Three, protection of exclusive right of trademark holder in the trademark is merely a means necessary to promote social good in general and interest of unwary customer in particular. Four, judicial invocation of publici juris is designed to pre-empt tragedy of commons. At the end, Paper develops an argument that the Court should have applied judicially manageable standards to rigorously scrutinize theoretical underpinnings of trademark law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Trademarks are common graphic signs in human society. People used this kind of graphic sign to distinguish the signs of representative significance such as individuals, organizations, countries, and groups. Under effective use, these graphic signs can bring maintenance and development resources and profits to the owner. In addition to maintenance and development, organizations that have obtained resources can further promote national and social progress. However, the benefits of these resources have also attracted the attention of unfair competitors. By imitating counterfeit trademarks that appear, unfair competitors can steal the resources of the original trademark. In order to prevent such acts of unfair competitors, the state has formulated laws to protect trademarks. In the past, there have also been researches on similar trademark searches to assist in trademark protection. Although the original trademark is protected by national laws, unfair competitors have recently used psychological methods to counterfeit the original trademark and steal its resources. Trademarks counterfeited through psychology have the characteristics of confuse consumers and do not constitute infringement under the law. Under the influence of such counterfeit trademarks, the original trademark is still not well protected. In order to effectively prevent such trademark counterfeiting through psychology, this article proposes new features based on trademark design and Gestalt psychology to assist legal judgments. These features correspond to a part of the process that is not fully understood in the human visual system and quantify them. In the experimental results, we used past cases to analyze the proposed assistance system. Discussions based on past judgments proved that the quantitative results of the proposed system are similar to the plaintiff or the judgment to determine the reasons for plagiarism. This result shows that the assistance system proposed in this article can provide visually effective quantitative data, assist the law to prevent malicious plagiarism on images by unfair competitors, and reduce the plagiarism caused by the similar design concepts of late trademark designers.

Much has been written about the "overprotection" of trademark, especially in the sports industry. Actionable trademark infringement and dilution have been expanding, largely as a byproduct of the trademark merchandising right. This relatively new-jbund right has transformed the names, logos, catchphrases, and colors of sports leagues and teams into commodities that can be monetized. Sports entities and teams now possess near-monopoly control over a broad swath of words and symbols. In abandoning trademark's traditional purpose to identify the source and origin of goods, current trademark doctrine has harmed consumer welfare and competitive markets, and bolstered private entitlements to language and iconography, encroaching on.freedom of expression. The overprotection and commodification of sports trademarks have taken especially strong hold in the United States, and less firmly in the European Union and United Kingdom. However, five developments in the US and abroad are now coinciding to provide an opportunity for a timeout to reconsider the situation: (1) the growing unavailability of suitable team names is complicating sports branding and rebranding: (2) athletes are increasingly seeking to extend their intellectual property portfolios to trademark, further cluttering that space; (3) Brexit has released the UK.from the EU trademark regulatory regime and jurisprudence that historically have been more protective than UK law; (4) P'ee speech values have gained purchase in opposition to overprotective trademark doctrine, as evidenced in US Supreme Court decisions and EU trademark reforms; and (5) the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 provides an opportunity to declutter the US federal registry and reemphasize trademark use requirements. This article compares the US, EU, and UK approaches to the merchandising right and dilution doctrine, and the extent to whiuh they have strayed from trademark's traditional Junctions. Against this backdrop, the article examines the impact of overprotection on sports industry stakeholders and consumers, and suggests new strategies and spheres of compromise where looser conception and enforcement of trademark will actually benefit all constituencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Shanghai Physical Education Institute / Shanghai Tiyu Xueyuan Xuebao is the property of Shanghai Physical Education Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Punitive damages were introduced into the intellectual property field in China by legislation permitting their imposition for malicious and serious infringements. This paper offers a comprehensive legal framework of punitive damages regarding trademark infringement and a critical analysis of the application of punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes in Chinese judicial practice. My research reveals that punitive damages have rarely been imposed since the punitive damages provision, Article 63 of the Trademark Law, took effect in 2014, whereas statutory damages have been applied extensively. The reason for this is that there are few guidelines for the application of this provision. The challenges to the application include undefined statutory requirements, difficulties in not only assessing compensation but also providing evidence and determining the multiple of compensation, and an unclear relationship between statutory damages and punitive damages. The 2019 Amendment of the Trademark Law retains these problems. Fortunately, the recently released Judicial Interpretation and typical cases concerning punitive damages contribute to resolving them. Moreover, those cases in which punitive damages have been applied have gradually revealed some basic principles for their application. Reform suggestions are offered in order to stimulate the development of a more thorough and uniform application of the punitive damages provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on federal law displaced common law trademark and unfair competition law because courts interpreted the Lanham Act to provide a federal cause of action for infringement of unregistered marks. It mentions significant concerns about the pre-Lanham Act state of affairs was the inability of traders considering adopting a new trademark. It also mentions disuniformity in decisional law following the Supreme Court's decision in Erie v. Tompkins.

In this article, the author discusses unsuccessful efforts to cause the owners of patent rights in vaccines to waive their patent rights so that other countries can manufacture the COVID vaccine. It mentions Congress has amended the Lanham Act significantly in the last seventy-five years and Frank Reed lectures on copyright law because immediately after graduation. It also mentions psychology of trademark infringement, predatory price cutting, and international trademark agreements.

It is not just enough for a mark holder to raise an alarm and further proceed to seek redress in court for trademark infringement. Such mark owner must establish and prove the following elements to the court -- (1) unauthorised use in commerce of trademarks; (2) unauthorized use of the brand in respect to the sale of goods and services and other commercial activities; (3) unauthorized use of the mark as a trademark; (4) likelihood of confusion emanating from trademark infringement; and (5) No fair use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd v La Sirène Pty Ltd, O 'Brien J dismissed a claim for trade mark infringement against La Sirène Pty Ltd brought by Urban Alley Brewery Pty Ltd for a breach of its URBAN ALE trade mark. In the process, O 'Brien J held the URBAN ALE trade mark should be removed from the register because it was not distinctive, and on account of the mark being likely to deceive or cause confusion under s.88 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The decision highlights the perils of registering descriptive trade marks and the advantage of adopting truly distinctive beer labels. And as much as the new generation of craft brewers want to set themselves apart from traditional breweries, they might want to take some pointers from their antecedents--who adopted elaborate devices for their labels. After all, history has shown those labels hold enduring value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keyword advertising, an advertising technique that targets users of search engines, is popular around the world It has also attracted a certain degree of controversy in the world of trade marks. This article focuses on the legality of this advertising practice under trade mark law applicable in Sri Lanka. The focus on Sri Lanka is motivated by three factors. First, the ongoing COVJD-19 crisis has forced businesses to shift online, and, for those already with an online presence, to further expand. Second, and as a natural consequence, businesses have had to invest more in advertising on the internet to become more visible on search engines. To that end, some businesses have embraced the practice of keyword advertising and have employed it in controversial, if not unlawful, ways-giving rise to an emerging keyword war. Third, the health crisis has almost instantly compelled Sri Lankan consumers to rely heavily on online platforms to purchase essential goods and services. As such, consumers are now increasingly exposed to search engines and, in turn, the practice of keyword advertising. For these reasons, determining the legality of keyword advertising, as an advertising practice, in the Sri Lankan context is a matter of public importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on background information on the U.S. trademark law, traditional infringement, and upcycling which is materially different from traditional infringement. It mentions pervasive infringement framework, including traditional infringement exceptions and policy arguments that distinguish upcycling from traditional infringement. It also mentions necessity of distinguishing between traditional infringement and upcycling.