+91 44 28120000

हमसे मिलने के लिए फोन करें

 

US Patent and Trademark Office Tag

SURANA & SURANA > Posts tagged "US Patent and Trademark Office"

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 25 JAN 2022

Huawei’s Trademark applications for ‘Petal Search’ rejected The company had applied for the Trademarks ‘PETAL SEARCH’ in relation to search engine services and providing localized search services based on user search habits. The search engine was launched back in 2020 and applications for the registration of the trademarks was filed in 2021. The applications were initially rejected on the basis that there were similar marks which were already registered, containing the term ‘PETAL’ in relation to identical services, following which the company had applied for re- examination which has again resulted in rejection stating that the similarities in the cited marks...

Continue reading

IP NEWS WEEKLY UPDATE – 25 NOV 2021

YouTube expands guidelines on Copyright infringement detection The number of takedowns of content due to Copyright strike has been increasing and it was also announced that YouTube is testing out new features which aim to provide more capacity to manage channel engagement, and more options to help creators’ secure branded content deals, and monetize their efforts. The platform has now expanded access to a new content takedown process enabling creators to automatically take down duplicate uploads of any content that they’ve previously removed. The Copyright match tool has also been introduced which when creators or users submit a takedown request, scans...

Continue reading

IP News Weekly Update – 14 Aug 2021

IPR News update templatte - 14 Aug

Biscuit Battle Last year Britannia had taken ITC to court alleging that the latter’s product packaging “Sunfeast Farmlite 5-Seed Digestive” and  “Sunfeast Farmlite Veda Digestive” were deceptively similar to Britannia products. Soon after the dispute, ITC modified its packaging and Britannia expressed that it had no objection to the use of the modified packaging by ITC. However, the Delhi High Court ruled that the disputed packages “cannot be called as deceptively similar” as the name of the product on the packages are abundantly clear. Regardless, Britannia subsequently gave up its claim for rendition of accounts, damages, etc. as it was personally...

Continue reading