Celtics’ Rozier Sued Over Use Of ‘Scream’ Mask For ‘Scary Terry’ Shirt

Celtics point guard Terry Rozier is being sued by the company behind the so-called “Scream” mask.
Earlier this year Rozier began selling a shirt featuring a mask after people started calling him “Scary Terry.”

Now the mask maker says Rozier has violated their copyright by using the image.
“Without permission or authorization from Plaintiff, Defendant adopted the Ghost Face Mask design as his own mascot and paired the design with his alter ego ‘Scary Terry,’” Easter Unlimited, Inc. says in the lawsuit.

The court filing cites a GQ interview in which Rozier says “We need to get the Scream mask on there.”

The company is seeking damages and wants Rozier to stop using the artwork that is featured in the slasher film series “Scream.”

Indian court rules in Sanofi’s favour in trademark suit

The Delhi High Court has ruled against a company for its ‘near identical’ imitation of pharmaceutical company Sanofi’s name and trademarks.

In a decision handed down on Friday, November 16, the court said the defendants, named in the judgment as Faisal Mushtaq & Ors, are liable for trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement.
The same court had already imposed an interim injunction against the defendants in May this year, but the latest decision grants full summary judgment in favour of Sanofi.

According to the judgment, the defendants had been calling themselves ‘Snofinn’ and had adopted a visually similar logo to Sanofi. They also operated a website under the domain www.snofinn.com.
According to Sanofi, the pharmaceutical company first came across the www.snofinn.com website in December last year. On the site, the defendants were using the “nearly identical” trademark ‘Snofinn’ and trade name Snofinn Pharmaceuticals.
Snofinn also marketed itself under the tagline “A universal healthcare provider focused on patients’ needs”, which Sanofi’s lawyers argued was confusingly similar to its own tagline, “A global healthcare leader focused on patients’ needs”.

The court concluded that Sanofi had made out a case of trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off , before adding that the defendants have “no real prospect of defending the claim”.

Shakespeare trust hits ex-licensee with copyright and TM suit

The Shakespeare Globe Trust, a charity focused on promoting and celebrating William Shakespeare’s impact on the world, has accused a former licensee of infringing its copyright and trademarks.

The trust filed its lawsuit against Kultur International Films, a film company that specialises in the distribution and production of performing arts and other genres on DVD, yesterday, November 19 at the US District Court for the District of New Jersey.

According to the claim, Globe entered into a distribution agreement with Kultur in 2011, under which Kultur received an exclusive licence to make and sell certain Globe works in the US and Canada.
Globe gave notice to terminate the licence in March 2017. The licence expired in May 2017, but Kultur allegedly continued to sell the works.

Globe also claimed that it demanded that Kultur stop its infringing activities in a phone conversation with Dennis Hedlund, the founder and chairman of Kultur, who is also named as a defendant.

Forever 21, Puma Settle Lawsuit Over Copied Fenty Footwear

Rihanna’s Fenty Puma wares are soon to be at the center of one less lawsuit. Puma and Forever 21 have managed to settle the design patent, trade dress, and copyright infringement lawsuit that the German sportswear giant filed against the Los Angeles-based fast fashion company in April 2017, with the parties agreeing to dismiss the case (subject to court approval), according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

While the terms of the parties’ settlement are confidential, the Stipulation to Dismiss Case, which was filed on Wednesday, states that “all claims and defenses in this action shall be dismissed with prejudice,” meaning that Puma cannot refile the case on the same grounds at a later date, and that “all parties [will] bear their own fees and costs.”

The settlement comes just weeks after Forever 21 sought a partial dismissal of the case, arguing that Puma’s design patent claim, which extends to the Fenty Puma Creeper sneaker, should be tossed out, as the design is not new to Puma, and in fact, dates “back decades to the mid-twentieth century.”

Before that, Forever 21 argued that Puma should be taken to task for “misrepresenting material facts” - including who, exactly, designed the shoes - “to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office” with its filings for some of the footwear at issue in the case, “thereby committing fraud.”

Puma filed initially filed suit against Forever 21 in the spring of 2017, claiming that the notorious copycat replicated and sold three of the most prominent footwear designs from Rihanna’s sold-out collection for Puma in an attempt to “trade on the substantial goodwill of Puma, Rihanna, and the Fenty shoes.”

Satanic Temple sues Netflix, Warner Bros over a statue in 'Sabrina'

The Satanic Temple is suing the makers of TV series "The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina" for $50 million (about R714m) over a statue.
Netflix and Warner Bros allegedly copied the group's statue of the goat deity Baphomet in the programme. Both production companies have declined to comment on the lawsuit, the BBC reported.

Satanic Temple said it does not worship Satan, but instead seeks "to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people". The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in New York, claims an icon similar to their own appears in four episodes of the series.
Lucien Greaves, co-founder of the Satanic Temple, posted a tweet comparing their statue with that in the show.

Greaves confirmed the group was going to take legal action against the show's production companies for "appropriating copyright monument design to promote their asinine Satanic Panic fiction".
Founded in 2012, the group does not believe in a supernatural Satan, but instead works to ensure the separation of church and state and holds Satan as a symbol of "opposition to arbitrary authority".

Lego wins case against Chinese copycats

Lego has won another case against imitators in China, where copies of its colourful plastic toy bricks and figures have been a recurrent problem.
"We believe these decisions are well-founded in the facts and the law, and clearly demonstrate the continued efforts of Chinese authorities to protect intellectual property," Lego chief executive Niels B. Christiansen said in a statement.

The Guangzhou Yuexiu District Court ruled that four companies had "infringed multiple copyrights of the LEGO Group and conducted acts of unfair competition by producing and distributing LEPIN building sets", Lego said.
The court ordered that the companies immediately ceased "producing, selling, exhibiting or in any way promoting the infringing products," it said.

Furthermore, Lego will receive around 4.5 million Chinese yuan ($900,000) in damages.
In a landmark case last year, Lego for the first time succeeded in a copyright competition case in China, where it seeks a bigger slice of a $US43 billion ($60 billion) toys and games market.
The Beijing Higher Court passed a ruling that recognised the Lego logo and name in Chinese as "well-known" trademarks in China, putting the toymaker in a better position to act against infringement of its trademarks.

China is important to Lego, which has seen slow or declining growth in its mature Western European and US markets although China still accounts for less than 10 per cent of group sales.
Lego, an abbreviation of the Danish "leg godt" meaning "play well", plans to open two flagship stores in Shanghai and Beijing and continue its partnership with Chinese internet giant Tencent .

Louis Vuitton Emerges Victorious In The Face Shop Trademark Infringement Case

Louis Vuitton has emerged victorious in a trademark infringement case against Korean cosmetics company The Face Shop, according to a report by The Korea Times.

Louis Vuitton accused The Face Shop of using its designs following a partnership with US tote brand My Other Bag in 2016. My Other Bag is known for creating imitation designer bags for brands such as YSL and Celine. Louis Vuitton also started that the parody bags undermined US registered trademark and copyrights.

Despite The Face Shop arguing that its products were a parody, the Seoul District Court ordered the company to remove the Louis Vuitton-designed products off shelf and pay a fine of 50 million won.

The court declared that the use of the Louis Vuitton-designed bags were different to how The Face Shop used other My Other Bag’s parody products.

Kylie Jenner is Being Sued for Allegedly Copying Another Beauty Brand's Packaging, Trademark

Kylie Jenner and her company Kylie Cosmetics are being sued … again. This time, the reality television star-turned-budding makeup mogul has been hit with an interesting trademark action, in which fellow beauty brand Sheree Cosmetics claims that Jenner has run afoul of the law by using its trademark-protected “Born To Sparkle” slogan for a single shade in a larger collection of liquid eyeshadow products and for allegedly copying the “inherently distinctive packaging [of Sheree Cosmetics’ products], by imprinting quotations on the [inside of] products’ packaging.”

According to the complaint, which was filed on Monday in a New York federal court, Alabama-based Sheree Cosmetics began using the “Born to Sparkle” slogan in connection with its various beauty products late last year, and filed a still-pending application to federally register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in August 2018.

Since then, Kylie Cosmetics has started “using the exact same trademark, BORN TO SPARKLE” on one product in her new line of liquid eyeshadow products, Sheree alleges, thereby “likely confusing consumers to believe they are buying the genuine, original BORN TO SPARKLE cosmetics from [Sheree Cosmetics]” instead of a product from Jenner’s wildly successful eponymous beauty venture.

More than merely jacking its trademark, Sheree’s further claims that Kylie Cosmetics has taken to including quotations on the inside of some of its eyeshadow palettes, which Sheree claims infringes its own “inherently distinctive packaging, including the imprinting of quotations in the products.”

Regus Sues WeWork For Trademark Infringement, Poaching Tenants

HQ has long been used as casual shorthand for headquarters, but the term is at the heart of a trademark infringement lawsuit between the world's two biggest providers of flexible office space.
IWG, through two Texas-based subsidiaries, has filed a lawsuit against WeWork in Dallas federal court, claiming WeWork's new business line, HQ by WeWork, infringes on a 28-year-old trademark registered to HQ Network Systems, which Regus acquired in 2004.

IWG claims the HQ by WeWork brand could confuse customers because IWG still has a brand called HQ Global Workplaces. That brand operates from the website hq.com, and the HQ brand has existed since the 1970s, the suit claims. The lawsuit claims the name HQ by WeWork could "cause confusion and deception in the marketplace."
The suit was filed Sept. 19 in U.S. District Court in Dallas. WeWork filed a countersuit Oct. 9, denying all of Regus' claims and asking the court to invalidate Regus' trademark, based on the idea that HQ is a common term for headquarters and should not be considered intellectual property.

NEW CASE: Hoser v Sportsbet Pty Ltd

Sportsbet's use of the word "Snake man" in an advertisement did not constitute use as trademark and therefore did not infringe the applicant's marks "Shake man" and "Snake Man". Nor was it misleading or deceptive under the ACL..

Application of trade mark use being use as a "badge of origin" per High Court in E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 15.

At a broader level, the case demonstrates the limitations of protection when ordinary English language words with a low level of distinctiveness are registered as trade marks.

Kate Hudson’s sportswear brand takes on rival in TM suit

Women’s sportwear brand Fabletics, which was co-founded by actress Kate Hudson, has accused California-based competitor Fabcrate of trademark infringement.

Fabletics filed its complaint for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin and misrepresentation at the US District Court for the Central District of California on Wednesday, October 10.
Since 2013, Fabletics has promoted its trademarks, including a stylised ‘F’ logo, in connection with its online retail service and store, said the claim.
The sportswear brand’s trademarks include the word mark ‘Fabletics’ (US number 5,521,047), registered for footwear.

Fabletics alleged that Fabcrate began using a confusingly similar name and marks in connection with goods and services that are similar to its own, without any authorisation.
As a result, average consumers are likely to be misled into incorrectly believing that Fabcrate and its goods are affiliated with Fabletics, said the sportwear company.
According to the claim, Fabletics was first made aware of Fabcrate’s similar brand name and goods in April and made several attempts to contact Fabcrate between May and July.
In August, the founder of Fabcrate responded to the inquires to resolve the matter. However, Fabletics alleged that Fabcrate’s unresponsiveness and “unwillingness” to find a resolution has delayed Fabletics’ relief.

EU court rules in favour of shoe retailer in EUIPO dispute

The EU General Court today upheld an appeal made by Spain-based shoe retailer Unipreus, setting aside a previous decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that denied the company’s trademark opposition.
In January 2015, second-hand consumer goods website Wallapop, which is also based in Spain, applied to register a figurative mark at the EUIPO for the name ‘wallapop’ in lower case and stylised font.

Wallapop sought to register the mark in class 35 for services relating to online sales and e-commerce for its website www.wallapop.com.
That same month, Unipreus opposed the mark based on its earlier Spanish figurative trademark which features the word ‘wala’ in black font, followed by a smaller ‘w’ in green font.

Today, the court said that the services covered by both of the marks are available via the internet and are consequently competitive.
The court added that the use of the word “retail” in the earlier mark’s goods and services includes both sales from a shop and those via the internet.
In addition, the court concluded that the general public may purchase goods on Wallapop’s website that are identical or similar to goods covered by Unipreus’s earlier mark.