Around the IP Blogs

Trade Marks

SpicyIP reviewed a ruling from the Bombay High Court concerning the deceptive similarity between signs. The case at hand dealt with the names ‘ASĀVA’ and ‘RAMPUR ASĀVA’ in connection with whiskey, in light of an earlier trade mark, ‘THE ASWA’, registered under Class 33 for alcoholic beverages. The blog questioned the judge’s decision to rely solely on a phonetic comparison of signs, and to apply an Australian precedent directly to an Indian judicial proceeding.

The Afro-IP blog informed on a trade mark infringement case, which was decided by the High Court of South Africa. The case involved iCollege, providing educational services online, and Expertease Skills, an E-learning platform. Each business had a figurative mark containing ‘iCollege’ in them. The plaintiff, iCollege, sued Expertease Skills for using a confusingly similar mark, and also requested the transfer of the domain name from Expertease Skills to iCollege. The blog sets out, in a step-by-step analysis, the reasoning of the High Court in dismissing the infringement claim.

The IP Helpdesk presented the main changes in trade mark registration practice in Chile following its adherence to the Madrid Protocol. Chile is one of the few countries to do so in Latin America, the others being Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil. The adherence will come into force in early 2022.


Kluwer Copyright Post discussed whether dynamic blocking injunctions (eg injunctions which apply not only against the infringing web-site, but also against any future mirror sites) are possible under the current copyright law in Egypt. The post’s author believes that such injunctions are indeed possible, but much depends on the judge’s discretion. For Kat readers, interested in the topic, this Kat also recommends a recent study on dynamic blocking injunctions in the EU.
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Sunday, October 03, 2021 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.