Trademarkclick.com-Apply your Mark Online

Article 38 of the UAE Criminal Law of 1987 with its amendments read as “Copyright offenders shall be punished by detention for not less than three months and payment of fine, not less than AED 50 000 [about $13 600] and not more than AED 500 000.”

Venable LLP recently filed a trademark lawsuit on behalf of toymaker Wham-O Holding against recently launched Boogie Board products by Tandem Boogie LLC. The lawsuit was filed in California Central District Court. The suit revolves around the act of Tandem Boogie using the word “Boogie” for their Surfing Board products. As per the records, no counsel has appeared to date for the defendant. This case is 8:21-CV-00251, Wham-O Holding, Ltd. v. Tandem Boogie, LLC. The attorney who is representing Wham-O Holding Ltd. in the court is Sarah S. Brooks.Wham-O Inc. is an American toy company having its head office in Carson, California, United States. It is famous for manufacturing and marketing many popular toys for almost 70 years. Some of its most loved products include the Hual hoop, Frisbee, Slip ‘N Slide, Super Ball, Trac-Ball, Silly String, Hacky Sack, Wham-O Bird Ornithopter & Boogie Board. Richard Knerr and Arthur "Spud" Melin are the two main minds behind the establishment of the company. Both are the University of Southern California graduates who were friends from their teen days. Both were unhappy with their jobs and wanted to start their own business. So as a result, they formed the WHAM-O Manufacturing Company in the year 1948 in South Pasadena. Initially, they started from the Knerr family garage. Their first product was the Wham-O Slingshot which was made up of ash wood. The name "Wham-O" was inspired by the sound that is produced when the slingshot it’s the target.On the other hand, Tandem Boogie Board was invented by John and Manya Clark. The Boogie Board product is designed in such an innovative way that anyone can enjoy water sports with a partner with them having any level of experience. So, the couple (inventors) decided to take this experience of surfing to a whole new level by inventing a buddy board. This later turned into their business. The couple along with their children are running their own company.However, the Tandem Boogie incorporates a Clarks’ original technology whose patent is pending dealing with internal Dynamic AIR Design (DAD). This technology uses a cross-woven fibre system so as to gives each product the kind of stiffness and response it boasts. Apart from this, every bodyboard is equipped with strong yet soft, easy-to-grip handles, a built-in camera mount, and a tail design that enables users to cut through waves in an almost effortless manner. All Tandem Boogie products come with a Dual Stage Pump, a backpack, and a maintenance kit which makes everything even more convenient for their customers.Sarah submitted, “Tandem deliberately chooses to use the term ‘Boogie’ not only for their board but also for their company which amounts to trademark infringement. They want to take undue advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Wham-O. Both companies attract the same class of customers and the trademark used by Tandem undoubtedly will cause confusion among the people regarding the Tandem’s Boogie board being an updated version of Wham-O’s Boogie Board.”Now, everyone is looking forward to the decision of the court as that might result in changing the name of the Tandem Boogie Company. Everyone loves this new board product range from the recently launched company and since there is no injunction as of now, people can buy their products as much they want to. It would be a wise decision to go for it, of course, grab one for yours!

England and Wales Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling a few days back which says that the act of Vodafone for using IPCom’s standard-essential patent for a method of access in telecommunication networks was protected by Crown use. Vodafone initially argued to support its case that it implemented the patent to comply with the framework of the government under the Mobile Telecommunication Privileged Access Scheme (MTPAS). This scheme, however, allows for priority access where first responders can join mobile networks in the event of any emergency. In the UK, the Crown use exception under Sections 55 to 59 of the UK Patents Act giving the state the right to use, make, import, sell or even offer to sell a patent without the prior consent of the patent holder.The telecoms company argued that because of the IPCom’s patent permission to Vodafone that allowed it to abide by the access scheme being laid out by the government and that alleged infringement was in service of the Crown. However, the Court of Appeal ruled: “Vodafone’s use of IPCom’s patent does not fall under the scope of Crown use because the government does not express authorization to work the patent or an authorization to do any act in circumstances where that act necessarily infringes the patent.”Myles Jelf who is a partner at Bristows in London and was a counsel to IPCom in this matter. He stated in an interview that if the Court of Appeal had not overturned the lower court’s decision then the result would have been nothing but an influx of companies that would be using the Crown use defense and then later billing the government for the infringement.“There were multiple ways for Vodafone to comply with MTPAS that did not involve infringing IPCom’s patent,” says Jelf. “Take the trivial example of coffee mugs. If the government asks for 10,000 coffee mugs and you supply them with only the high-end ones that infringe a patent, when much cheaper ones would do that don’t infringe, why should the government have to pick up the tab for an infringement that didn’t have to happen.” However, this court ruling brought clarity in regard to this rarely used defense that could have ramifications during ongoing COVID-19. Vodafone has not announced to date on the point whether it will attempt to go for appeal against the decision to the UK Supreme Court.

TikTok in 2019, posting videos that did not properly represent her brand.” Since then, Gutman and JLM have been locked in a prolonged battle over the Instagram account, which Gutman asserts is her own personal account.In her recent Instagram video, Gutman claimed that she had been using the account as a hybrid since she even started it by mixing her personal and professional lives as a wedding dress designer. Soon after the video went up on Instagram, many women on social media started to express their support for their beloved Gutman. In her video, Gutman even asked her fans to share it as much as possible with others so they could exactly know what was going on. She further promised to even share more about her future plans and ventures. "I love being a wedding dress designer, and I feel like I was put on this earth to do this," she said. "And I do not feel that that love should come at the expense of certain things. And I will not be bullied."

DuBay mentioned in his suit, “There were substantial similarities between the Rook and King’s character, including that both were gunslingers who had a strong affinity with birds.” King later countered his statement by saying that he already had created so many aspects of Deschain’s character even before the time when the character of The Rook was even published. The Eleventh Circuit found in its judgment: “Any similarities are superficial and the district court did not err in its decision in any manner.” DuBay has not made any sort of announcement till now on the point of whether he will try to petition for a full-court rehearing at the Eleventh Circuit or to the US Supreme Court. All of us are waiting for his announcement eagerly.

There are still four active stream-ripping sites that need to be blocked and they are Flvto, 2Conv, Flv2mp3, and H2Converter. Apart from the sites, the downloadable app provider MP3 Studio is also left.

VLSI took Intel to court over patent infringement of technology related to chip-making. The lawsuit was filed before a Federal jury in Waco, Texas. Federal Jury of Texas court decided recently in favor of VLSI and ordered Intel to pay $2.18 billion. This award is one of the largest patent-damages awards in US history now.VLSI Technology Inc. is the first company to design and manufacture custom and semi-custom integrated circuits (ICs). The company is based in Silicon Valley has its headquarters at 1109 McKay Drive in San Jose. VLSI Technology defined not only LSI Logic but also the leading edge of the application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) business. This later resulted in accelerating the push of powerful embedded systems into affordable products.The company was founded in the year 1979. A trio was responsible for the establishment of this company who was from Fairchild Semiconductor by way of Synertek – Jack Balletto, Dan Floyd, and Gunnar Wetlesen – and by Doug Fairbairn of Xerox PARC and Lambda (later VLSI Design) magazine.Intel, however, pledged to appeal. Federal Jury of Texas court observed that Intel has infringed two patents that are owned and closely held by VLSI Technology Inc. The jury awarded $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the other second patent.The jury further rejected Intel’s argument where it was denying their act of infringement of either of the patents and was claiming that one of the patents was invalid. The reason stated by it for the invalidity of VLSI’s patent was the coverage of the work by Intel engineers only.Lawyer William Lee of Wilmer Hale was representing Intel before the jury. “The patents had been owned by Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors, which would get a cut of any damage award”, Intel's lawyer stated in his closing argument in front of jurors. “VLSI, founded four years ago, has no products and its only potential revenue is this lawsuit. VLSI took two patents off the shelf that hadn’t been used for 10 years and simply said, ‘We’d like $2 billion.’ VLSI is entitled to no more than $2.2 million,” Mr. Lee further added.On the other side, lawyer Morgan Chu of Irell & Manella was representing VLSI before the jury. He said, “One of the patents was originally issued in the year 2012 to Freescale Semiconductor, and the other in the year 2010 to SigmaTel. Freescale later bought SigmaTel that was in turn bought by NXP in the year 2015. The two patents, in this case, were then transferred to VLSI in the year 2019. The patents covered inventions that increased the power and speed of processors, a key issue for competition.”However, Intel was not satisfied with the decision of the Federal jury and is planning to appeal further against this ruling. “Intel strongly disagrees with today’s jury verdict,” the company said in a statement. “We intend to appeal and are confident that we will prevail.”

OLED IP company Solas OLED recently announced that it has filed a new patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics. It is based in Ireland. The company filed this lawsuit in the courts of Germany.However, Solas chooses not to disclose the exact patents that are involved in this lawsuit, but the company says, “Our patent portfolio covers all critical areas of OLED structures, display design and architecture, and driver circuitry, and that Samsung is using the company's inventions in its own various devices without our prior permission, such as smartphones, watches, and tablets.”Solas reported that some of its cases are already pending against Samsung before the International Trade Commission and also before the US District Court in Texas for a patent.Solas is a leading licensor in the market of technology focused on the OLED market. Having a look from the smallest OLED watch to the largest OLED TV, Solas’ intellectual property is a fundamental element to the design, circuitry, and manufacturing of OLED displays. However, the company works in a way by licensing its portfolio of OLED patents to numerous leading manufacturers of smartphones, wearables, tablets, computers, and even TVs. Existing licensees of the company include major market leaders of the markets of OLED display, smartphone, computer, and digital camera.It is a very interesting fact regarding the Solas that its worldwide portfolio of intellectual property not only encompasses innovation beginning in the early 1990s but also covers all critical areas of OLED structures, display design/architecture, and also driver circuitry. The patents are undoubtedly fundamental to every active-matrix electronics and are also universally required for the functioning of AMOLEDs, irrespective of specific organic material. Solas has successfully assembled its portfolio as one of the most comprehensive OLED portfolios in the world. Further, it not only provides new entrants to the OLED market the freedom to operate but also gives existing companies the ability to defend their market positions. However, it continues to seek, evaluate and acquire new patents in the OLED space.Solas' patents provide a very important worldwide coverage in all of the major markets of countries such as the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, and Singapore.Solas always remain in the limelight of filing lawsuits against its patent infringement. It is a quality that every company must acquire to be active enough to protect its IP and inventions. Some old instances are also there where Solas OLED sued major companies over patent infringement. Solas prevailed in its patent infringement action in Germany against LG Display, LG Electronics, and Sony in the month of November of 2020 where the case got settled when LG Display later signed a license with Solar OLED. Solas also dropped two lawsuits that it filed in the courts of the US against Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics. In the year 2020 also, Solas OLED has filed a lawsuit in the US against top companies for OLED stack patent infringements.

La Liga has failed in its attempts to register “El Clásico” as a trademark. La Liga appealed to the General Court of the European Union for this purpose where the court rejected the Spanish governing body’s appeal.The Campeonato Nacional de Liga de Primera División which is commonly known as La Liga (LaLiga Santander for sponsorship reasons with Santander) is the men's top professional football division of the Spanish football league system. It is stylised as La Liga and is administered by the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional. It contested against approximately 20 teams where the three lowest-placed teams at the end of each season relegated to the Segunda División and got replaced by the top two teams and a play-off winner in that division.The phrase “El Clásico” is used to describe the derby between two of Spain’s top teams i.e., FC Barcelona and Real Madrid. This phrase got its recognition in the US and the United Arab Emirates when it got trademarked by La Liga in 2017. However, the division was granted permission by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in those two regions but now the division is looking for a similar kind of recognition in Europe.The General Court ruled: “The evidence presented by La Liga, taken individually or as a whole, did not demonstrate that, on the date of the application for registration, a significant part of the relevant public perceived the trademark applied for as an indication of the commercial origin of the services it designates.”Although La Liga argued in its favor that the association of El Clásico with the teams has developed a high level of knowledge, popularity, and reputation which surround the phrase globally. However, the General Court did not get convinced with their argument and ruled absolute denial of their trademark registration.La Liga approached the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) before approaching and being knocked back by the Luxembourg-based General Court where EUIPO rejected their appeal.Spanish newspaper El País also covered this story stating, “EUIPO opposed the appeal on the grounds that the expression El Clásico will be perceived by the Spanish, French, German, Dutch and Portuguese public as an expression used to describe a sporting confrontation that exists between teams with a notable rivalry, not only in the case of football matches but also other sports.”Having both rejections in their hands, La Liga is left with their final option that is to appeal the General Court’s ruling to the European Court of Justice.

Unsurprisingly, Peloton disagrees with what has been stated if Mad Dogg’s website. In its filing, it says, “Mad Dogg has spent years engaged in a bullying campaign of demand letters and litigation to force people and companies to stop using the very terms they have every right to use. Enough is enough. It is time to put a stop to Mad Dogg’s tactic of profiting by threatening competitors, marketplaces, and even journalists with the enforcement of generic trademarks.”

Swift is currently working on an ambitious reissue program. She has re-recorded her first six albums after they were originally released by someone else. Big Machine being that label that sold all the master recordings against her wishes. The first reissue of Fearlessis expected to be released on 9 April 2021. This release will include all the six previously unreleased tracks as well.

It is not for the first time that such kind of case occurred, every other day 100s of such cases arise and this number is increasing day by day with the development of technology along with the increasing awareness to protect their IP amongst the people. Even the last patent royalty dispute occurred in the year 2012 between the two companies when Ericsson took legal action against the South Korean company making allegations of patent infringements. It took almost two long years to resolve this issue. Samsung had to pay the Swedish company US $650 million along with years of royalties to put a full stop to the battle.

The ban reversal is a result of negotiations held between Facebook and the Federal Government over the Media Bargaining code. Media Bargaining Code aimed at pushing tech giants like Google and Facebook to pay publishers for news content. A number of amendments have been made to the code following the negotiations held on 23rd February, 21. Such amendments include support for regional and small publishers in securing deals with digital platforms. However, they also commit to various measures including identifying and stopping unidentified accounts, or bots, disseminating content; informing users of the origins of content, and publishing an annual transparency report under the voluntary code.

EPO member states recently have agreed on common practices under a joint initiative with a view to aligning all the administrative practices more closely between the EPO and Europe's national IP offices. The first two common practices upon which member states agreed to include the practices in the areas of examination of the unity of invention, and regarding the designation of the inventor. However, these practices were endorsed by all the member states at a meeting of the organisation's Administrative Council in the month of December 2020."I am pleased to announce this milestone in our convergence programme," said EPO President António Campinos. "We know that companies and inventors seeking patent protection in Europe are sometimes confronted with different practices at national patent offices and the EPO. This can complicate the European patent system, and lead to increased costs and inefficiencies. Through this initiative, we are working together to tackle this issue head-on and closer alignment will benefit both patent system users and the offices alike. This is of particular importance for SMEs, for whom differences in practice can be a major obstacle to operating internationally."This initiative was launched in 2019 as a part of the EPO's Strategic Plan 2023. Six different areas for convergence of practices were chosen jointly under this initiative by the national patent offices, the EPO, representatives of industry and the IP professionals. They all were selected as the areas in which a more uniform approach can bead opted to deliver the most tangible benefits for its users and patent offices working between the EPO and Europe's various national IP offices.If we look at this initiative more closely then we can observe that the alignment of administrative practices is expected to improve predictability and a further improvement in legal certainty in the European patent system. This initiative also aims at providing simpler, more streamlined and cost-efficient proceedings for all the applicants. It will further help in increasing the efficiency of the EPO and the national patent offices and in bringing down costs through the potential re-use of various work products.In addition to the two common practices which are already adopted, the areas needed to be examined in future are as follows:the accordance of priority date; re-establishment of rights; claim drafting and structure; and Examination practice for computer-implemented inventions and AI. The common practices are being developed in various dedicated working groups. However, these groups are made up of representatives of EPO member state patent offices. These representatives examine different kind of approaches in Europe and further agree on best practice. One such best practice gets approved then they will be implemented by the offices on a voluntary basis.

This SP2023 was developed in two whole rounds of consultation with various personnel and groups including the 38 EPO member states, patent system users, the public, IP offices, and EPO staff.

Anurag Singh Thakur being the Minister of State for Finance introduced a bill in Lok Sabha for abolishing some tribunals where the public at large is not litigant. The bill proposes to provide for a mechanism for filing an appeal directly to the commercial court or the High Court, as the case may be', instead of filing at the tribunals. The government proposes to wind up five main tribunals which are: 1. Airport Appellate Tribunal,2. Authority for Advance Rulings3. Intellectual Property Appellate Board,4. Appellate Tribunal under the Cinematograph Act and5. Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal.6. These five tribunals will be abolished if the bill gets approval. The proposed bill further seeks to amend some acts including these major 5 acts: 1. The Cinematograph Act, 1952,2. The Customs Act, 1962,3. The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994,4. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 and5. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. "With a view to streamlining tribunals, the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 is proposed to be enacted to abolish certain tribunals and authorities and to provide a mechanism for filing an appeal directly to the commercial court or the High Court, as the case may be," Anurag Singh Thakur quoted the statement of objects and reason. Such bill has been passed with a view that these tribunals only add to an additional layer of litigation and having a separate tribunal means additional administrative action in terms of filling up of various posts and such other matters. Any kind of delay in such administrative actions results in further delay in the disposal of cases. "Reducing the number of tribunals shall not only be beneficial for the public at large, reduce the burden on public exchequer, but also address the issue of shortage of supporting staff of tribunals and infrastructure," Thakur said. The Bill proposes that all the cases which are pending before such tribunals or authorities would be transferred to the Commercial Court or the High Court on the same appointed dates. The bill further laid down severance terms for the Chairman and Members of such tribunals. They will be entitled under the bill to claim compensation of an amount not exceeding three months' pay and allowances for the premature termination of the term of their office or of any contract of service. The Government of India in the year 2015 began the process of rationalization of these tribunals. Earlier even in the year 2017 seven tribunals were abolished or merged by the Finance Act, 2017 on the basis of functional similarity. The total number of tribunals was reduced to 19 from 26 at that time. The rationale which was adopted in the first phase was to abolish tribunals adding no value to their existence and merge those tribunals with those having similar functions. Then later in the second phase (2021), analysis of data has been taken off the last three years which tells that tribunals in several sectors have not necessarily led to the system of delivering faster justice. They are further at a considerable expense to the exchequer. "Therefore, further streamlining of tribunals is considered necessary as it would save considerable expense to the exchequer and at the same time, lead to the speedy delivery of justice. Accordingly, it is proposed to abolish some more tribunals and transfer the jurisdiction exercised by them to the High Court," Thakur said.

Big companies like Microsoft, Google, and Qualcomm are seen raising concerns to regulators about Nvidia’s deal of acquiring Arm. The companies have approached regulators of the countries like US, EU, UK, and China. Companies' main concern is regarding the chances of how Nvidia could change the way how usually Arm licenses out its chipmaking technology.However, Nvidia has pledged in regard to not using its control over the company to change how it interacts with other businesses in any manner. Writing to the Financial Times, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said, “I could unequivocally state that Nvidia will maintain Arm’s open licensing model. We have no intention to throttle or deny Arm’s supply to any customer.”Meanwhile, all the rival companies of Nvidia argue that it sounds practically insane on behalf of Nvidia that it will keep Arm neutral and would not use Arm’s tech to its own gains that too after paying $40 billion for it. It isn’t something that the company would be incentivized to do. Putting restrictions on licensing would definitely hurt the companies that are being benefited from using the licensed Arm’s technology. However, Google and Microsoft are reportedly in their process of making their own Arm-based chips, and Qualcomm’s processors on the other hand are based on the architecture.As far as these arguments are concerned, Nvidia has replied with some explanations that the acquisition of Arm is only about driving AI forward which is an area Nvidia has focused on heavily for last many years including everything from its machine learning-powered upscaling on its graphics cards to its work in self-driving cars. The low-power technology of Arm could help Nvidia in spreading AI into more unexplored places. But the company will also figure out the things to do apart from what generally Arm does. General working areas of Arm mainly include powering almost every cellphone in existence along with holding the key to computer companies choosing to move away from Intel.Regulators are also apparently looking very closely at the deal with the aim to determine the fact whether this deal would give Nvidia too much power in the business of chipmaking business. However, the Federal Trade Commission has recently asked Nvidia and Arm to give it more information and Commission is also planning to talk to other companies who may have relevant information.Meanwhile, UK and EU officials have promised the companies to thoroughly investigate this deal. It is a fact that that they likely will hear many objections not just including Google, Microsoft, and Qualcomm, but also others who are in the chipmaking industry and are concerned about their own open-licensing agreement with Arm being affected by the merger.These companies have dealt before with regulators and the anti-competitive behavior of others. Qualcomm also has had to pay several fines amounting in the hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of dollars to authorities in countries like China, South Korea, and the EU for its anti-competitive licensing policies. Microsoft had its big monopoly case in the late ‘90swhere it got the courage to go up against the US government, and last but not the least, Google has recently been the main focus of growing antitrust sentiment in the US and EU.