The subscription-only All England Direct service has just thrown up another UK trade mark case, Mukadam v Indobrit Magazine Ltd and another (Chancery Division, 17 March, before Deputy Judge Peter Leaver QC). Mukadam owned two registered trade marks, the first being a word mark, INDOBRIT, the second consisting of the word INDOBRIT and a star: both were registered for printed matter. The defendants published a magazine under the name Indobrit. He sued the publishers of the Indobrit magazine for trade mark infringement and won.
The result is no surprise. What interests the IPKat is the fact that the word “Indobrit” got registered at all. It seems as descriptive a term as “Anglo-Saxon” or “Afro-American” and its meaning is so plainly guessable that it seems strange that anyone should be able to obtain a monopoly of its use in the cultural media. Even more surprising is the fact that, if his Google search is anything to go by, the word “Indobrit” only seems to be used by or in relation to the defendant’s magazine.
Some Indo-contributions to British culture here, here, here, here and here
The result is no surprise. What interests the IPKat is the fact that the word “Indobrit” got registered at all. It seems as descriptive a term as “Anglo-Saxon” or “Afro-American” and its meaning is so plainly guessable that it seems strange that anyone should be able to obtain a monopoly of its use in the cultural media. Even more surprising is the fact that, if his Google search is anything to go by, the word “Indobrit” only seems to be used by or in relation to the defendant’s magazine.
Some Indo-contributions to British culture here, here, here, here and here
THE ONLY GOOD INDIAN …?
![THE ONLY GOOD INDIAN …?]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, March 19, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html