Simkins LLP’s Post

The recent #Supreme_Court ruling in the Sky v Skykick case has set a significant precedent against overly broad #trade_mark monopolies. The Court found that the goods and services of some of Sky's trademarks were so expansive that they became unenforceable. Key Takeaway for Brand Owners: It's crucial to be specific about the goods and services you claim. This specificity can help you avoid applications being refused or challenges related to bad faith. For a deeper dive into this landmark case, check out the insightful article from #Pinsent_Masons below. https://lnkd.in/eX3JXvbk

Many film companies in India fall for this trap. Co-ownership of IP in films with either the Directors or even the other non-financing producer as a sweat equity. The practical problem becomes apparent at a later stage, many years later, when a particular film ceases to be a standalone valuable work but has value only as part of library. Companies trying to leverage their IP is such films, or similarly, if companies are going through corporate re-structuring through M&A or PE or simple sell off, the IP being joint in the films becomes a big issue. Hence myopic views (limited to the P&L of the film or the year-end quarter) at the time of IP creation should be avoided and expert opinion and diligent, strategic structuring and drafting to be adopted.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an interesting trademark case that will have significant implications for businesses. The case involves two real estate developers, Dewberry Engineers and Dewberry Group, locked in a $43 million dispute over the name "Dewberry." The central issue - when can a company be held liable for the trademark infringement committed by its affiliates? SCOTUS will hear this case during its next term. My initial thoughts as a trademark lawyer? To avoid situations like this, it's important to conduct search to clear the mark before spending a significant amount of money investing in a brand name. What are your thoughts? Feel feel to comment below. #trademark #branding #marketing #intellectualproperty #SupremeCourt https://lnkd.in/eq2mqAUh

New IP Bits & Pieces™ from Lutzker & Lutzker: SCOTUS Decision in “Trump Too Small” Trademark Case. On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the phrase “Trump Too Small” is not eligible for trademark protection under the Lanham Act. Read the full Bits & Pieces™ at the link below. #intellectualproperty #SCOTUS #trademark #LanhamAct

Delhi High Court upholds Dolma Aunty Momos trademark; Cancels infringing trademark registration Reported by Arunima B. Read More Here- https://lnkd.in/gnuDZt4Q #DelhiHighCourt #DolmaAuntyMomos #DolmaAuntyTrademarkInfringement #infringement #intellectualpropertyrights #rectificationpetition #Trademark #trademarkact #trademarkinfringement #TrademarkRegistration #scconline #SCC #legalnews #scconlineblog #legalknowledge #legalblog #legalupdates #lawstudent #legalresearch #legalstudies #surestwaytolegalresearch #bringingyouthebestlegalnews

Heifer’s Bullish Trademark Strategy Prevails: Court Grants Permanent Injunction #CaseReviews #IntellectualProperty #Trademarks #DelhiHighCourt #HeiferProjectInternational #LatestTrademarkCases #permanentinjunction #TrademarkInfringement

Learn all about German trademark procedures with insights from Reinhard Fischer and Tamara Moll on application, registration, enforcement, and more.

Explore this comprehensive guide to trademark procedures in Germany by Dr. Reinhard Fischer and Tamara Moll LL.M., covering everything from registration to enforcement, including opposition, cancellation, and more: https://lnkd.in/dk3CWnPa #WTR #Trademark #Germany #IPLaw #DPMA #TrademarkProtection #LegalGuide #IntellectualProperty"

The quandary of Section 124 of the Trademark Act 1999 resolved by Delhi High Court. The article analyses the issue revolving around Section 124 of the Trademarks Act with reference to judgments passed by the Delhi High Court. ROYZZ & Co Mahua Roy Chowdhury Jitendra Bohra #DelhiHighCourt #Trademark #TrademarkInfringement #IntellectualPropertyAppellateBoard #TrademarkAct

𝐁𝐢𝐠 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬! 🎉 The Sky v SkyKick marathon trade mark dispute was finally decided today by the UKSupremeCourt. 💡 The Supreme Court found in this 145 pages #landmark #judgement that Sky had acted in bad faith. Wide ramifications for UK brand owners as broad trademark specifications now more open to attack.💥 The new judgment is available here: https://lnkd.in/eR-6hejS Although the Supreme Court does not wish to deliberately deviate from EU law, it reaches a conclusion which is a deviation from the established position in European jurisprudence regarding whether broad lists of goods and services can lead to a finding of bad faith.   According to the Supreme Court, this is indeed the case, which will have far-reaching implications for the registration practices of trademark holders in UK. There are also implications for litigation proceedings.   As the case predates Brexit, the Supreme Court must consider EU case law as it stood at the time and engages in a textbook-like analysis of EU law. The highly instructive judgment is particularly interesting for interpreting bad faith. According to the judgment, when considering a company's field of business, an excessively broad registration of goods or services—where it is highly unlikely or even impossible that actual use will occur—can serve as a strong indication of a bad faith trademark application without an intention to use. The court found bad faith, taking into account that action was initially taken using all registrations, only to be narrowed to specific registrations afterward when the allegation of bad faith came up. Additionally, such registration practices can objectively suggest bad faith, requiring the trademark holder to explain their registration strategy and rebut the presumption of bad faith. Failing to do so serves as further evidence of abusive and bad faith registration practices. #IP #trademarks #trademarklaw #badfaith