Basic Information (Switzerland) Elecon Asia SA (hereinafter referred to as “Elecon”) is a powerful intelligent three-d...
Digital Copyright Ten Major Typical Cases 1.Short Video Copyright Case: Whether a Short Video is Original Has Nothing to...
December 7, 2023 - News of a patent infringement ruling against Apple Watches a few weeks ago caused a flurry of investo...
On 26 February, the General Court of the European Union ruled in case T-1066/23 on the likelihood of confusion for conceptual identity in different languages. The UK company Schweppes International Lt...
, do not constitute trademark infringement, thereby overturning a previous lower court ruling that had favored LV's complaint. According to South Korean media, this marks the first ruling in the country
a complaint with the relevant authorities to stop the misuse of our trademark and ensure immediate action.” According to Sarmad Hasan Manto, managing partner at Audiri Vox in Karachi, this incident
‘Vivanta Stays’ and ‘Vivanta Realty’, terms found deceptively similar to the ‘VIVANTA’ trademark owned by The Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL), operator of the renowned Vivanta hotels. Justice
Introduction Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law stipulates that “obtaining registration by other improper means” is an miscellaneous provision, and the specific conditions and factual basis for its
The Bombay High Court has ordered a fresh review of a trademark case involving the German luxury carmaker Audi AG. The case is about Audi’s attempt to register the trademark “Q6” for its large SUV
trademark infringement case. Football superstar Lionel Messi and his brand management company, LMGM, S.L.U., sued multiple Chinese cross-border e-commerce sellers who had been selling counterfeit "MESSI
On April 16, 2026, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) issued a ruling in a high-profile opposition case concerning the word trademark "FIREFLY," finding that the "FIREFLY" word mark applied
US-based sports shoe maker New Balance Shoes & Apparel's sales agent in Chinese mainland has been fined 98 million yuan ($15.8 million) for trademark infringement, Guangzhou Daily reported on April
rejected. P&G applied to register the trademark of Clarity on April 8, 2003, but SAIC ruled the trademark was very similar to an existing tooth product of Clarify. The court ruled the two trademarks might
CHINA intellectual PROPERTY LAWYERS NETWORK
+86-13910160652
ciplawyers@163.com
