Arslan Tahir’s Post

Press Release Detail by #CCP CAT UPHOLDS CCP PENALTY ON M/S IRSHAD TRADING Islamabad, 23-05-2024 The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) decided to uphold PKR 5 million penalty imposed by CCP on M/s Irshad Trading Corporation for deceptive marketing practices. The penalty was imposed by CCP on Irshad Trading for fraudulently using its competitor, Polycon Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited’s trademark, violating Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010. Polycon lodged a formal complaint with the CCP, alleging that Irshad Trading Co. was unlawfully using its registered trademark and brand name to manufacture, market, and sell water storage tanks, and was also misrepresenting itself as a joint venture of Polycon. The CCP’s enquiry committee established the violation of Section 10 by Irshad Trading. During the proceedings, Polycon confirmed that Irshad Trading had been its authorized distributor until September 2018, after which the distribution agreement was terminated. Despite the agreement’s termination, Irshad Trading continued to manufacture, market, and sell products with Polycon's logo until February 2019. Irshad Trading stopped the practice after the CCP’s show cause notice, but the unauthorized use had already harmed Polycon’s business interests. Irshad Trading admitted to the violation, citing a lack of awareness of copyright laws and Section 10. They admitted having manufactured water tanks using Polycon’s trademark after the termination of the distribution agreement. Taking a lenient view in light of Irshad Trading's commitment to refrain from such deceptive marketing practices in the future, CCP imposed a penalty of PKR 5 million and directed the company to cease using Polycon’s trademark, trade name, and products. Although Irshad Trading challenged the CCP’s order in CAT, it failed to appear before the Tribunal on the scheduled hearing dates, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

In a recent case, a jury found that weak trademark claims can sometimes outperform strong false advertising claims. This highlights the complexities of consumer perception and the legal landscape surrounding trademarks vs. advertising. 🤔⚖️ #TrademarkLaw #Advertising #LegalInsights #ConsumerPerception

This recent judgement of Delhi HC is related to ARBITRABILITY IN THE IP MATTERS. Background of the case: Petitioner, P is an advertising agency who were engaged by the Respondents, R for developing their ad campaign named ‘Steel of Oman’. A Service agreement was executed between the parties. Mid way during the execution, R terminated the agreement owing to alleged change of team from the P's side. P had shared ad proposals with R which couldn't fructify. P sought 50% payment as per the Service Agreement due to them which R wasn't inclined to. Meanwhile R had engaged diff agency and had launched their ad campaign, which P claimed to be their copyrighted content. P thus approached the High Court seeking restrain against R , from distributing and publishing the impugned video titled ‘Jindal Steel- the Steel of India’ on varios platforms. Issue before HC: Issue of arbitrability in a Trademark case. Held: 1. As per Vidya Drolia case, it is settled law that actions in rem are excluded from arbitration - wherein para 77 there is a reference to intellectual property issues regarding grant and issue of patents and registration of trademarks which are considered as exclusive matters falling within the sovereign of government function and having erga omnes effect. At the same time, in para 48 itself the SC has specifically stated that a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable though the arbitrator would end up examining the right to copyright which was a right in rem. 2. The above aspect has been reiterated by a Coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court in Liberty Footwear case. (Para 19 of the instant case). 3. The issue of arbitrability ought not to arise in a situation where petitioner claims copyright of works developed as part of Services Agreement and alleges breach of various contractual provisions by the R. 4. This isn't a case related to the registration of intellectual property rights but involves specific allegations of breach by a contracting party of terms resident in an agreement. HELD: Appointing sole arbitrator, it was held that the R has FAILED to make a case for the non-arbitrability of the said dispute. The court after comparing the ad campaign launched by R and the one proposed by P, observed that the manner in which the agreement was terminated not as per the clause of the Service Agreement and nature of content of R's ad are substantially same. But since the ad was already launched, no Injunction was granted to the P. But to balance the equities, the court observed that R has seemingly having taken benefit of material which was supplied by petitioner and need to put to terms. R volunteered to deposit 50 lac rs. The ball is in now sole arbitrator's hands! Case name: Wienden Keneedy India Prvt Limited vs Jindal Steel, OMP (COMM) 109/2024, Delhi HC, dated 24th April 2024. #arbitration , #ipr

There are a few big-ticket compliance SNAFUs in this ad (the exclusion of the comparison being the most obvious), but usage of the Coat of Arms in a black and white ad designed to emulate a Government document is the focus of this rant. The use of the mark is regulated under federal law, and its use in any advertising is prohibited unless specific permission is granted (and it never is, particular when used in consumer-facing finance advertising, and certainly not on ad that is natively non-compliant or deceptive). Let's look at some of the laws relating to usage of the Coat of Arms. 1. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Section 73: Prohibits the unauthorized use of the Australian Coat of Arms in a way that suggests a connection to the Australian Government. 2. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Section 39: States that the Australian Coat of Arms is a protected symbol and cannot be used in trade or commerce without authorisation. Use in advertising is considered a form of trade or commerce. 3. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2015 (Cth). This amendment strengthens protections for official government symbols, including the Australian Coat of Arms. 4. Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The Australian Coat of Arms is not covered by copyright but is protected under laws governing national symbols. Misuse could still lead to enforcement under this act in conjunction with other legislation. 5. Australian Government Branding Guidelines. These guidelines clarify appropriate uses of the Australian Coat of Arms and explicitly prohibit its use for commercial purposes, including advertising. 6. Consumer Law. Implying a government endorsement or affiliation is misleading and a breach of Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Section 18). 7. Other consumer/financial legislation deals with trickery, deception, false representation, false endorsements or associations, and consumer perception. Be careful.

How does invisible trademark infringement impact fair competition in India’s digital landscape? From meta-tagging to online advertising, explore the hidden harm behind unauthorized trademark use. https://lnkd.in/g9tXBVeD #TrademarkInfringement #DigitalMarketing #LegalImplications #KingStubbandKasiva #KSK #KSKBlogs

There are a few big-ticket compliance SNAFUs in this ad (the exclusion of the comparison being the most obvious), but usage of the Coat of Arms in a black and white ad designed to emulate a Government document is the focus of this rant. The use of the mark is regulated under federal law, and its use in any advertising is prohibited unless specific permission is granted (and it never is, particular when used in consumer-facing finance advertising, and certainly not on ad that is natively non-compliant or deceptive). Let's look at some of the laws relating to usage of the Coat of Arms. 1. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Section 73: Prohibits the unauthorized use of the Australian Coat of Arms in a way that suggests a connection to the Australian Government. 2. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Section 39: States that the Australian Coat of Arms is a protected symbol and cannot be used in trade or commerce without authorisation. Use in advertising is considered a form of trade or commerce. 3. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2015 (Cth). This amendment strengthens protections for official government symbols, including the Australian Coat of Arms. 4. Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The Australian Coat of Arms is not covered by copyright but is protected under laws governing national symbols. Misuse could still lead to enforcement under this act in conjunction with other legislation. 5. Australian Government Branding Guidelines. These guidelines clarify appropriate uses of the Australian Coat of Arms and explicitly prohibit its use for commercial purposes, including advertising. 6. Consumer Law. Implying a government endorsement or affiliation is misleading and a breach of Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Section 18). 7. Other consumer/financial legislation deals with trickery, deception, false representation, false endorsements or associations, and consumer perception. Be careful.

📢 Second Circuit Clarifies Key Trademark Infringement Requirements In a significant ruling, the Second Circuit emphasized that establishing trademark infringement under federal law requires proving that the defendant’s use of a valid, protectable mark is likely to cause confusion. While the Court recognized 1-800’s federally registered marks and confirmed that Warby Parker’s purchase of the keywords constituted “use in commerce,” it clarified that merely purchasing a competitor’s trademark as a keyword in search advertising does not automatically amount to infringement or unfair competition. Crucially, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions caused customer confusion. #TrademarkLaw #TrademarkInfringement #IntellectualProperty #LegalUpdates #KeywordAdvertising #BusinessLaw

The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits have ruled that purchasing a competitor’s trademark for keyword search advertising does not, by itself, constitute trademark infringement. #IntellectualProperty #Trademark #slotnicklaw #slotnick

The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits have ruled that purchasing a competitor’s trademark for keyword search advertising does not, by itself, constitute trademark infringement. #IntellectualProperty #Trademark #slotnicklaw #slotnick

Online Infringers Can't Hide Anymore -- The INFORM Consumers Act gives brands the information they need to take more decisive legal action against infringers. It used to be impossible to find out the identity of bad-acting sellers on online marketplaces. As a result, brands were left with incomplete enforcement remedies, primarily, the online marketplace’s takedown procedure. The INFORM Consumers Act imposes information disclosure obligations on online sellers and online marketplaces and enables brands and consumers to now obtain the name, email address, phone number, tax identification number, and bank account information of high-volume online sellers. With this information brands can take take direct legal action. While marketplace takedowns can be useful tools, civil action can be the most effective way to stop infringers. Leveraging the information available under the INFORM Act with strategies for targeting multiple different sellers at once can make legal action both effective and cost-effective. If online marketplaces concern your business or practice, please make a point to click the link in the comments below to read the fantastic summary of the INFORM Consumers Act -- "Get INFORM-ed: A Primer on the INFORM Consumers Act" written by my colleagues Sara Gruber and Emily Rice for the Winter 24 edition of The Newtonian, Leason Ellis’ quarterly newsletter. (p. 13-16). Other topics covered in this edition of The Newtonian include: - Are You Bound by Terms Reached During Mediation? - Five reasons why it is best to file declarations of use for trademark protection sooner rather than later. - A rare reversal by the Copyright Review Board highlights how it can be beneficial to request reconsideration of a refusal to register a work.