The Plaintiffs Parth Parenteral Pvt Ltd (PPPL) and Pearl Drugs Private Limited (PDPL), are Indian entities engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals and veterinary products including animal feed supplement preparation and agricultural, horticultural, food stuff for animal and veterinary and sanitary ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Tea Board is an autonomous, non-profit making statutory body created under the Tea Act, 1953 and a part of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India for the purpose of controlling the Indian Tea Industry. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the certification marks DARJEELING and DARJEELING ....Click here for full details >>

The Petitioner is a French company and a well known manufacturer of wines which it is selling under the trademarks MOET and MOET & CHANDON worldwide. The petitioner is known as Moet & Chandon since 1832 and its Champagne bearing the mark MOET had been shipped in India as early as 1906. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of the mark MOET in Class 33 since 15 October 1982 and MOET & CHANDON since 5 July ....Click here for full details >>

The present decision involves two suits filed by the parties against each other. The parties are Double Coin Holdings and Trans Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. Double Coin Holdings is a Chinese company who is the proprietor of the trademark DOUBLE COIN in respect of tyres. Double Coin distributes its products under the mark DOUBLE COIN ....Click here for full details >>

In Japan, it is difficult to be determined that “three-dimensional shapes of goods themselves or packages (containers) of goods (hereinafter, referred to as “three-dimensional shapes of goods or packages themselves”)” have “distinctiveness” as trademark. Thus, there are few examples of prior registration of “three-dimensional shapes of goods or packages themselves”. In recent few years, however, there are some cases of registration regarding “three-dimensional shapes of goods or packages themselves” as “three-dimensional trademarks” in Japan, such as “Case of registration regarding Coca Cola bottle” below. Through these cases, requirements for registration of “three-dimensional shapes of goods or packages themselves” as “three-dimensional trademarks” in Japan are becoming clearer. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff Levi Strauss & Company, is engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of clothing of all kinds, , clothing, leisure shoes, spectacles, glasses, sunglasses, bags and other accessories under the LEVI'S mark.The Plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the trademark LEVI'S in India in different classes. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Crompton Greaves Limited (Crompton Greaves) is the market leader in the electrical engineering sector and also exports its products to more than 60 countries worldwide. It is using and is the exclusive proprietor of the corporate name CROMPTON GREAVES and a distinctive CG logo since the year 1966. ....Click here for full details >>

Reversing the decision at first instance, the Full Federal Court of Australia has ordered that Lodestar Anstalt’s (“Lodestar”) trade mark WILD GEESE (“WG mark”) should be expunged from the Register. The decision was made on grounds that the primary judge had inappropriately exercised the discretion not to remove a mark for non-use granted under s 101(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The decision sheds crucial light on how, and the circumstances in which, the Registrar/courts may exercise their discretion under s 101(3) to allow a mark to remain on the Register despite a finding of non-use. Facts In 2005, Austin, Nichols & Co Inc (“Austin”), owner of the bourbon brand WILD TURKEY, applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks to have the WG mark removed from the Register under s 92(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) for non-use. The Registrar refused the application for removal except in so far as it related to 'wine, fortified wine and wine based spirits, namely brandy, grappa and cognac' in class 33. ....Click here for full details >>

The new Trademark Act was passed on May 31, 2011 by the Legislative Yuan, and amended and promulgated on June 29, 2011 by President Order. The date of enforcement of this Act will be prescribed by the Executive Yuan and is proposed to be enforced in June 2012. ....Click here for full details >>

When we refer to the Argentinean trademark opposition procedure, different questions arise especially in light of the comparison with other local and regional systems. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a clear idea of which are the particularities of the mentioned proceeding, whenever exclusive rights granted by a trademark registration are intended to be obtained in the country. ....Click here for full details >>

The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth) (the ‘Act’) will come into effect with regard to retail sales of tobacco products in Australia on December 1, 2012. The Act and the Regulations made pursuant to it (together, the “legislation”), tightly regulate and dictate the manner in which tobacco products may be packaged and offered for sale at the retail level. In doing so, the legislation severely restricts or prohibits the use of trademarks for tobacco products. Sub-section 20(1) of the Act prohibits any trademarks from appearing on the retail packaging of tobacco products unless they are specifically permitted by the legislation. Sub-section 20(3) however permits the use of the brand name of tobacco products and any variant name for the products. The effect of these provisions is that only word trademarks for tobacco products will be permitted on retail packaging. The use of all other trademarks (such as logos, any artwork or aspects of packaging) is prohibited. ....Click here for full details >>

Barbados is a tiny island in the Caribbean Sea, covering just 431 square kilometers. The population numbers under 290,000; there are very few natural resources and almost no manufacturing industries. So, why am I telling you all of that? The answer is that most of the consumer goods, TV shows and music found in Barbados are imported. Foreign brands and technology are exposed to locals and to the hundreds of thousands of tourists and working ex-pats who visit the island year round for the sun, sea, sand and business opportunities. It is therefore very important for foreign intellectual property owners to protect their rights in Barbados. Let’s look at brand protection. Trade, service, certification and collective marks may be registered. The common law action of passing-off provides additional protection for unregistered marks and trade dress. ....Click here for full details >>

In July 2006, ABC (China) Investment Co., Ltd. and ABC, Inc. (Switzerland) (collectively known as “the Applicants”) filed an application for dispute resolution to the Beijing Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce Bureau, Haidian Branch against ABC (Beijing) Biological Chemical Co., Ltd. for the violation of their trademark rights. The matter of the application is as follows: To revoke or rectify the ABC (Beijing) Biological Chemical Co., Ltd. trade name in accordance with relevant laws. ....Click here for full details >>

Trademark prosecution proceedings in Colombia are now a bit easier thanks to a recent Anti-paperwork Decree of January 10, 2012. The Decree (No. 19 of 2012) echoes all the recent changes to Colombian trademark laws that will apply after the Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) enters into force on April 13, 2012. Legalizations of documents are now a thing of the past, multiclass applications are now available, applications and registrations may be divided and the filing dates of initial applications for the purpose of priority rights are now certain. ....Click here for full details >>

Trademark protection in Europe tends especially since the introduction of the Community Trademark System to unification of rules and practice in all EU states. The easy changes in individual countries have been mostly done, but there still remain some problems that resist any convenient solution. A problem that has been in the Czech Republic already solved concerns bringing our Trademark Law in conformity with one aspect of the TRIPS Agreement. According to the former Czech Trademark Law the license agreement came into force only after it was registered at the Czech Industrial Property Office. This was very important in cancellation proceedings in cases where the trademark was not used by its owner but by another firm with a consent of the trademark owner. To bring this law into conformity with TRIPS the Czech Trademark Law was amended so that that the license agreement came into force in respect to third persons only after it was registered at the Czech Industrial Property Office. Nevertheless, the Czech Industrial Property Office understood this amendment so that a use of a trademark by a licensor of a non-registered verbal license could not be considered a use for the purpose of a proof of use in a cancellation proceeding, which has been based on non-use, and the proof was thus still missing. The problem had to be solved by the Highest Administrative Tribunal, which had declared that where a trademark has been really used by a subject with a consent of the trademark owner, such use should be considered as a use by an authorized person even though the consent, i.e. the oral or written license, has not been registered at the Industrial Property Office. ....Click here for full details >>

The Gautamalan trademark system is based on the principle of “registration” and it’s “territorial”, meaning that the trademarks are protected in Guatemala only if they are registered in the Guatemalan Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO). Different than the trademarks, the trade names are protected on a “first use basis”. This means, that they are protected by the owner since its first use in the commerce. However, if a company wants to register it´s trade name in GPTO, they may do so using a similar application process, but adding a document that proves the actual an non interrupted use of the said trade name, in its country of origin. This all should work just fine, but there is a current issue in Guatemala with the registration of trade names, which is that, the Commercial Registry grants anyone who requests for the constitution of a new company, the use of a trade name if it is not registered in that particular Office, and it does not take into consideration the previous Intellectual Property Rights, that are already protected or in process to be protected in our GPTO. This means, the Commercial Registry doesn’t check if the trade name is registered at the GPTO. ....Click here for full details >>

The JPO (Japan Patent Office) has adopted the 10th edition of Nice Classification and changed its practice to accept the description of “dietary supplements” for processed food for health aid in Class 5. This new practice has been applied to the trademark applications filed after January 1, 2012. However, for the applications which were filed before January 1, 2012 and are pending for examination in the JPO at present, they shall be examined under the old practice. ....Click here for full details >>

1.Introduction I am often requested by foreign associates to respond to provisional refusals issued by the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”) against applications based on the Madrid Protocol. Recently, a frequent ground for refusal refers to the main paragraph of Article 3(1) of the Japanese Trademark Act, which requires “actual use”or “intent-to-use.”This provisional refusal has been issued more often than before due to the revision of the Guidelines for Examination in effect since April 1, 2007. Hence, I would like to explain the trademark examination practice in Japan, particularly regarding “Subclass”and “Similar Group Code,”both strongly related to said provisional refusal; in case this provisional refusal is issued; and how we should deal with it. ....Click here for full details >>

1.Before Filing What can be Registered A trademark may include colors and may be two-dimensional or three-dimensional, but mere color without any accompanying figure is not permitted in Japan. Sounds and smells are not eligible for trademark protection. Description of Goods or Services The Japan Patent Office (JPO) publishes a list of acceptable descriptions of goods and services organized in classes and subclasses. (The list can be viewed via our website at www.ryuka.com/goods.) If a desired goods or services classification does not appear on this list, the goods or services should be explained in great detail so that the examiner can clearly understand their nature and scope. The examiner will then suggest a description in the first office action. ....Click here for full details >>

Since the administration neoclassic theory’s perspective and bearing in mind the industrial property field, every authority in charge of administering industrial property (Patent and Trademark Office, PTO) should be considered in terms of its efficiency and its effectiveness when an assessment of its performance is to be done. Effectiveness: is the capability of producing a desired result. When something is deemed effective, it means it has an intended or expected outcome. Then, this is a measurement of achieving a desired effect. Effectiveness does not worry about means, but it focuses on achievements only. Efficiency: is the capability of conducting an effective operation as measured by a comparison of achievements with resources. Efficiency is a measurement of the use of resources, i.e., is the ratio of resources to outcome. Efficiency does not necessarily worry about achievements, but it focuses in the use of means. ....Click here for full details >>

The Netherlands is not only known as the land of tulips, but also as the land of “coffeeshops”. Coffeeshops, unlike the name suggests, are places that sell marijuana. One of the oldest coffeeshops in Amsterdam is THE BULLDOG, which has been visited by millions of tourists over the years. THE BULLDOG, initially started as a small coffeeshop in 1975, grew in to a multi-million dollar business. THE BULLDOG eventually became a large consortium consisting of several hotels, shops and cafes. Its product range went well beyond just marijuana, and many different goods are sold today under the THE BULLDOG name. Through its expansion THE BULLDOG trademark acquired a reputation in he Netherlands. ....Click here for full details >>

On 13 February 2012 the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (“IPONZ”) released its new case management system for trade marks and designs. The case management system has made IPONZ systems the equal of the most modern of any Intellectual Property Office in the world, and the functionality of the system has obviated the need for traditional postal correspondence Key features of the new system include: All correspondence sent electronically. Applications are managed from a personal IPONZ inbox. Contact information can be more readily updated by the agent. Progress of applications and the file can be reviewed online. Cases before the hearings Office can be managed online. ....Click here for full details >>

Nigeria is listed amongst the ‘Next Eleven’ countries as having a high potential of becoming one of the world’s largest economies in the 21st Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.Next_Eleven. With the global recognition of Nigeria as an emerging commercial hub of Africa, multinationals are increasingly expanding protection of their trademark portfolios to include Nigeria. As a result, the Trademarks Registry has been inundated with an increasing number of trademark applications. With the several forms of corporate structuring, trademark portfolios have become rather complex in their management needs. It would be expected that the growing need for trademark protection in Nigeria would be met with an equally able legal climate to enable adequate protection of trademarks belonging to multinationals and local businesses. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The primary legislation regulating trademarks in Nigeria is the Trademarks Act (1965) Cap T13 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (“the Act”). It is unfortunate that the legal regime for trademark protection in Nigeria has remained largely stagnant since the Act was promulgated. ....Click here for full details >>

On December 7, 2011, a new Russian law (Federal Constitutional Law No. 4-FKZ) came into force. According to this law, a new, specialized court, the Court on Intellectual Rights (“IP Court”), was added to the Russian Arbitrazh court system. Russian Arbitrazh courts are state courts which consider disputes between legal entities. If a participant of a dispute is a physical person, such a dispute is subject to consideration by Regular courts. Law 4-FKZ provides that the IP Court will be established no later than February 1, 2013, on the basis of Arbitrazh courts as a special court body to consider cases related to the protection of intellectual property rights. This is the first specialized state court to be established in Russia. ....Click here for full details >>

Sierra Leone Intellectual Property Law is about to shed its colonial vestige for a modern state-of-the-art law which includes service marks. A Bill is before Parliament for a new Trade Marks Act. The current Trade Marks Law is the Trade Marks Ordinance of 1913 and 1923 (Cap 244); Ordinance No. 26 of 9th December 1929 and Ordinance No. 10 of 18th July 1940. The pre-1938 Old British Classification of Goods would be replaced by International Classification of Goods which makes provision for services marks. Sierra Leone which has a population of 5,530,000 (about Five and a half million) inhabitants has been propelled into the International Commercial World with this Bill. The Trade Marks Office and Registry is fully operational and vibrant thanks to the innovative gestures of a dynamic Registrar-General who is at the helm of affairs. She has already managed to collect record revenue for Government through increased activities and efficient service. ....Click here for full details >>

1.Trademark Act and Rules: TAIWAN adopts First to File System and proceed substantial registrability examination, by international goods classification. An application may include multiple classes; three months of opposition period opens to third parties after publication of issued registration; the term of registration is ten years and each renewal is extended for ten years. 2.Current practice of Registrability Examination: Current Trademark Act protects a trademark composed of a word, device, symbol, color, sound, three-dimension or a combination of these. In Taiwanese practice, the designated names listed in Nice Classification generally would be accepted; Examiner usually reviews the goods specification, completes the search for similar prior registrations and applications, and then issued first Office Action indicating almost all questions; applicant may have more than one chance to response to an Office Action; most Examiners accept new description of designated names beyond those allowed and publicated registrations, especially to new products. Please note in China, standard examination of the above-mentioned practice is not the same. ....Click here for full details >>

The main functions of a trademark are to identify the source of origin and to distinguish it with the goods manufactured or services provided by others. Comparing the practice in the U.S. that requires a Statement of Use to obtain trademark registration if the application is based on intent-to-use, in Taiwan, a trademark applicant need not provide evidence of use to obtain registration, provided that, such evidence is only required to prove that the applying mark has gained a secondary meaning so that it has become distinctive for registration. The current Trademark Act effective from November 21, 2003 adopted multi-class registrations and abolished associated trademarks. Thereafter, a trademark may be revoked in whole or partially depending on the case; an associated mark automatically became the principal mark after the enactment of the Trademark Act of 2003. Although the new Trademark Act, promulgated by the President on June 29, 2011, is expected to become effective on July 1, 2012, the aforementioned matters remain the same. The Intellectual Property Court (IP Court) was launched on July 1, 2008. Thus, the IP Court has the authority to determine most of the intellectual property issues by itself for all courses of actions, no matter whether administrative, civil or criminal. ....Click here for full details >>

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently sustained, on a second go-around, Corporacion Habanos, S.A.’s (Habanos) opposition to Guantanamera Cigars Co.’s (GCC) application to register the mark GUANTANAMERA for cigars. The mark was deemed not registerable for cigars on the ground that it was determined to be a primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive term and thus not entitled to registration under the Lanham Act. See Corporacion Habanos, S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., Opposition No. 91152248 (February 16, 2012). ....Click here for full details >>

Because of the complexities of the U.S. trademark registration system, many trademark owners from other countries, and their counsel, are reluctant to file national or international applications in the United States. One of the reasons often given is the higher cost of obtaining trademark protection in the United States due to the statutory requirements and the formalities that must be observed. It is frequently overlooked, however, that a U.S. trademark registration covers a largely monolingual (English), highly sophisticated market of over 310 million people. ....Click here for full details >>

1. We did a corporate name search and registered our name so we are protected. Companies often mistakenly believe that filing corporate paperwork and registering their company name with the appropriate Secretary of State’s Office is the equivalent of having the name approved as a trademark. It is not! Federal trademarks are governed by federal law and regulated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and federal courts. ....Click here for full details >>

On December 2011, a Uruguayan Criminal Court of Appeals affirmed an important decision issued by a lower Criminal Court stating that Uruguay has jurisdiction over counterfeit goods in transit, since counterfeits constitute a criminal offense according to the Uruguayan Trademark Act. This means that counterfeit goods can be stopped and seized at customs, by customs own initiative or upon the request of the trademark owner before the correspondent Criminal Court. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Aktiebolaget Volvo adopted the trademark VOLVO in 1915 and is the registered proprietor of the mark in relation to various categories of goods including buses, cars, automobile parts etc. In February 2009, the Plaintiff's representative came across ice cream being sold under the mark VOLVO by the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off, and sought a temporary injunction against the Defendants. ....Click here for full details >>

Ecolab Inc., is a US corporation formed in 1924 and into the business of manufacture and trade of premium cleaning, pest elimination and repair products having wide application in the hospitality, food service, ....Click here for full details >>

The plaintiff, Procter and Gamble Co. is a reputed multinational company, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling skin care and personal cleansing products, including anti-aging moisturizer under the trademark OLAY. The plaintiff holds registration for the trademark OLAY TOTAL EFFECTS and OLAY in Class 3 in India and is also using the trademarks in respect of anti-aging products. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. is the registered proprietor of the trademark CASTLE and CASTLE label in respect of beer in a large number of countries. In India, plaintiff has been selling beer since 1994. The Plaintiff applied for registration of CASTLE (label) in India on 29th April, 1995 and the word mark CASTLE on 6th February, 1996, which were granted registration during the pendency of the suit. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff Hakkasan Ltd, is a well established and reputed UK company which owns a number of fine dining restaurants in the food and hospitality sector since 2001, under the trade mark/trade name HAKKASAN. The expression HAKKASAN was coined by the Plaintiff in 2000 and it was also the registered proprietor of its trademark in India in Class 42. The Defendant is an Indian entity, also engaged in restaurant services and operated an outlet called Vie Lounge and Deck. In June 2010, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant had introduced oriental cuisine services at its outlet Vie Lounge and Deck, ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Hahnemann Laboratory Ltd. & Ors is a family concern and is the owner of the registered trademark "ARNIMAX" for its medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation under Class 5 since 2003. The Plaintiff also used the silhouette of the lady with black hair as its trade dress together with the said registered trademark "ARNIMAX", which came to be identified with the Plaintiff. In October, 2009, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendants have infringed its trademark by using the word "ARNIMAX" on its products coupled with the trade dress and thereby has infringed the registered trademark and passed off its products as that of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a suit and an interim order was passed on 19th February, 2010 by the Court restraining the Defendants from using the “ARNIMAX” mark. At the trial, the Defendants produced a 'No Objection Certificate' purportedly signed by Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd.,who they claimed to have been permitted by the Plaintiff to use the “ARMINAX” mark. The Defendants .alleged that the Plaintiff was aware of such use of the “ARMINAX” mark by Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. and the Defendants and yet had taken no steps. Therefore, the Plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts and acquiescence and is thus disentitled to a relief of temporary injunction. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Court found that there was neither any assignment or license of the “Arnimax” mark by the Plaintiff to Das Homoeo Laboratory. Moreover, the No Objection Certificate was signed by only one of the partners of Das Homoeo Laboratory and was therefore invalid. Also, on comparison of the signature of the Partner who purportedly signed the No Objection Certificate with another document signed by the same partner of Das Homoeo Laboratory, the signatures did not match. On the basis of the above grounds, the Court held that the Defendants' claims to the “ARMINAX” mark derived from the permission granted by Das Homoeo Laboratory cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Court issued an order restraining the Defendants from using the “ARMINAX” mark in any manner. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Samsung Electronics Company Limited is a Korean company engaged in manufacturing and trading in a range of electronic goods. The Plaintiff's trademark SAMSUNG is registered in India in a number of classes of the International Classification and the SAMSUNG mark is licensed by the Plaintiff to its Indian subsidiary. The Defendant is an Indian company engaged in distributing, retailing and selling various types of computer hardware ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff is a well known Indian industrial conglomerate with operations in the field of iron and steel, textiles, power, chemicals, hotels, automobiles etc. The Plaintiff has been using the trademark and trade name TATA, which is a rare and distinctive patronymic name, since 1868. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Construction Research & Technology is the owner of the trademarks 'POZZOLITH and POZZUTEC in the field of building materials, i.e., admixture material and building material for concrete. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark POZZOLITH in India for more than 60 years.The Plaintiff's claim is that the prefix 'POZZO/POZZU' have become distinctive of its' products and the consumers associate all POZZO formative mark with Plaintiff exclusively. ....Click here for full details >>

Eco Lean Research & Development A/S filed a trademark application for registration of the trademark ECOLEAN for different classes of goods under the International Classification list. The Registrar of Trademarks examined the application and refused to allow the application to be registered. ....Click here for full details >>

Eveready Industries India Ltd is engaged mainly in the business of manufacturing and trading of dry batteries, re-chargeable batteries, flash lights, compact fluorescent lamps, general service lamps, insect repellants and packet tea, under its trademark/house mark EVEREADY. Eveready had been using the trademark EVEREADY since 1905 ....Click here for full details >>

Godfrey Phillips (India) Ltd. had filed an application for cancellation against ITC Ltd's registered mark PILOT before the Trade Marks Registry, Kolkata. In the cancellation proceeding, ITC repeatedly prayed for extension of time to file its evidence and subsequently, in 2009 filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Godfrey Phillips. In the suit, the Trial Court passed an ex-parte injunction order restraining Godfrey Phillips from using the PILOT mark in any manner. Godfrey Phillips filed a request for stay of proceedings before the Trial Court on the ground that its cancellation application challenging the rights of ITC to the PILOT mark is pending adjudication before the Trade Marks Registry. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Gorbatschow Vodka is the proprietor of a trademark in the shape of a Vodka Bottle which according to the Plaintiff, represents the architecture of the Russian Orthodox Church, Russia. The Plaintiff introduced the first version of the bottle in 1958, while the latest was launched in 1996 and a device of bird was added in 1999. ....Click here for full details >>

The Complainant is an international non-profit organization, representing the Association of Radio Maria, a Catholic radio broadcasting service founded in 1983 in Erba, Milan. The Complainant is the registered proprietor ....Click here for full details >>

he Complainant, Bloomberg Finance L.P. is the registered proprietor of the trademark BLOOMBERG in India for various services. The complainant came across the domain name ....Click here for full details >>

The Complainant is a voluntary consortium of Parma Ham producers and was set up in 1963 on the initiative of 23 producers of Parma region in Italy, with the objectives of safe guarding the genuine products of Parma. ....Click here for full details >>

The Complainant was formed in 1823 and is using the name 'Banca Intesa' in relation to national and international financial services, commercial bank services, industrial credit, insurance services, mutual fund services etc. The Complainant came to know ofthe domain name ....Click here for full details >>

The Complainant, Ray Marks Co. LLC is the company formed by celebrity chef and talk show host Ms. Rachael Ray. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'Rachael Ray' and has been using the trademark since 1999. ....Click here for full details >>

The Plaintiff, Robert Half International Inc. is an US company, the world's first and largest specialized staffing firm, founded in 1948. The Plaintiff provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services through its specialized divisions which places professionals on a temporary, temporary-to-hire, and full-time basis. The Plaintiff owns the trademark/trade name ROBERT HALF ....Click here for full details >>

The Complainant is the founder-owner of Laboratoire Argiletz S.A., specializing in the extraction and production of natural sun-dried coloured clay extensively used in medicines, skin care and health care products. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark 'ARGILETZ' worldwide and in India and owns several domain name comprising the mark 'ARGILETZ'. ....Click here for full details >>