Taylor Wessing UK’s Post

There's still time to sign up to Brands Forum 2024!    Following last week's landmark SkyKick v Sky judgment, we've adjusted our agenda to discuss how brands now need to approach specification drafting and enforcement given the lower threshold for bad faith. Join our international team and our panel of expert judges and decision-makers as they summarise the impact of this ruling, as well as the most significant legal developments impacting brands, including: • negotiating and drafting co-existence agreements  • anti-counterfeiting quick wins • lookalikes: where are we now? • the risks of delaying or not enforcing your rights • a round-up of this year’s key UK and EU developments.   To view the full agenda and register your place, please visit our website: https://bit.ly/48VrONY

Brand owners take note.. Let us know if we can help protecting your brand.

It takes a long time to build a brand. And a relatively short time to devalue and demean it. I know there is plenty to report on in the world. And news channels like the Guardian have always represented smart reporting. But with the advent of clicks for revenue, the 24 hour news cycle, and the manufacture of contrived outrage, I think even news brands like the Guardian might be cutting their brand throats for short term gain. Case in point, your honour? See below.

With the Hon’ble Supreme Court looking into the issue of misleading advertising, it is imperative for brand owners/advertisers to understand and adhere to the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements of Misleading Advertisements, 2022 (“Guidelines”) issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority [established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019]. Here is a brief overview of the Guidelines.

Oh how the media loves a ‘David versus Goliath’ trade mark case… As someone who has represented both sides in such battles, the possibility for adverse publicity is an increasingly real and commercial factor that the famous brand owner must consider when considering an enforcement strategy and/or defensive tactics. Reputational damage caused by the ‘court of public opinion’ can have a real financial impact on companies’ share price and cause tension with shareholders. (The BBC report includes a link to the ‘L V Bespoke’ decision). #trademarks #trademarklaw #trademarkattorney #ipattorneys Mewburn Ellis https://lnkd.in/eraNMcAS

This is an Ad we created to generate more interest in Personal Injury cases over a 3 month campaign 🏍️ #lawyer #lawyerlife #marketing #lawyermarketing #brand #marketingdigital #trendy #commercial

📢 To comply with The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, any image or photo used should be assessed (each time it is used) to make sure it accurately represents the property. 👉 It could be an offence to use any images that mislead a customer about the condition of a property. Get our full Primary Authority Advice on using images in property advertising ▶️ https://ow.ly/iKYq50SaFs3

Calcutta High Court Rules Against HUL in 'Glow & Handsome' Trademark Dispute with Emami In the heated battleground of the beauty industry, the clash between @Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) and Emami Ltd has reached a pivotal moment with the recent ruling from the High Court, Calcutta. The court has ordered HUL to cease the use of the 'Glow & Handsome' mark for its men's care products, responding to a lawsuit filed by Emami Ltd. The decision comes after a dispute that originated in 2020 when HUL rebranded its men's fairness cream to 'Glow & Handsome,' a move that closely resembled Emami's established 'Fair & Handsome' brand. Emami took legal action, claiming infringement of its rights and alleging deceptive similarity between the two marks. The Calcutta High Court sided with Emami, deeming 'Glow & Handsome' as deceptively similar to Emami's registered mark. The court emphasized Emami's prior usage and position as the first player in the men's fairness cream segment, asserting that HUL's adoption of the mark was misleading and deceptive. Office Of The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks (CGPDTM) LatestLaws.com #CalcuttaHighCourt #TrademarkDispute #HULvsEmami #GlowAndHandsome #FairAndHandsome #IPRights #IntellectualProperty #BrandProtection #LegalBattle #BeautyIndustry #Men'sCare #TrademarkLaw #CourtRuling #IntellectualProperty #IPRights #TrademarkDispute #TrademarkLaw #BrandProtection #LegalBattle #TrademarkInfringement #IPLaw #TrademarkRights #IPLitigation #TrademarkProtection #IPEnforcement #ipquad #ipquadpartners Source: https://lnkd.in/gF66XsCd

For anyone interested in the latest from the Bell Media vs Warner Bros Discovery injunction filing - an update. The hearing took place on Friday in Toronto, with Bell Media seeking to block Rogers from launching any Discovery-branded services for a period of two years. (The abridged background to this injunction filing is that Bell Media (and its predecessor companies) has had a longstanding relationship with Discovery dating back to 1994, through which it has licenses the trademarks and content to Discovery Channel and sister brands Motor Trend, Discovery Science, Animal Planet and ID. Around those brands, it operates a suite of Discovery-branded cable channels that Bell Media majority owns (80%) with WBD (20%) in a joint venture structure. Earlier this year, it was revealed WBD had done a deal to move those agreements to Rogers, which is planning to launch linear channels for Discovery Channel and Discovery ID on January 1 in Canada) Very broadly, lawyers for Bell Media argued the channels Rogers intends to launch are “similar services” and therefore breach the two-year non-compete it has with WBD. Bell also says its contract has an exclusive first right of negotiation provision, which was breached when WBD began discussions with Rogers about the Discovery rights last year. WBD countered that the non-compete covenant that Bell cites is ambiguous and therefore non-enforceable, while a lawyer for Rogers said Bell is overstating the projected financial impact of losing the Discovery brands/content. The judge said he would aim to give his decision within one to two weeks, though didn’t commit to a firm timeline. More details below in C21 today ⬇ ⬇ ⬇

A simple reminder to trade mark owners to consider the media attention these 'David and Goliath' cases can get and the impact this could have on the reputation of your brand. This applies irrespective of your legal position (which was seemingly not strong enough in this case). https://lnkd.in/evfzC4U2 #trademarks #trademarkdispute #davidandgoliath #mewburnellis