Whether the Defendant's use of the contended trademark as its own misguides the public, and can be considered as passing off?
The principle of trademark protection, in lieu of Section 29 of the Trademarks Act 1999 holds that protection cannot be granted when the adopted trademark is not dealing in the domain of goods as the other party's trademark is.
Whether or not the decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. established that a single colour can be registered as a trademark under the Lanham Act, how has this precedent influenced later colour trademark registrations?
Whether the functionality concept, as established by the Court in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., constitutes a firm bar to registering a single colour as a trademark, or whether it is conditional on the specific circumstances and the impact of colour on product functionality?
A single colour can potentially meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act if it has developed secondary meaning in the market, demonstrating that it meets the primary purpose of trademarks by identifying the source of a particular good. The functionality concept does not preclude the registration of colour as a trademark unless the colour is necessary to the use or purpose of the product or has a major impact on its cost or quality.
Whether Michael Doughney's registration and use of "peta.org" for his website constituted trademark infringement, despite the fact that he did not sell any products or services?
Whether Michael Doughney correct in claiming that his website, "People Eating Tasty Animals" (peta.org), was a permissible parody under the First Amendment's free expression rights?
When assessing whether a domain name constitutes trademark infringement and whether a website qualifies for protection as a parody under the First Amendment, the court should evaluate whether the domain name or website suggests ownership by the trademark holder and simultaneously communicates that it is a humorous imitation. The possibility of user misunderstanding among users seeking the real trademark holder's website is an important factor in evaluating trademark infringement.
Whether the Defendant's use of the contended mark intended to deceive or cheat the public?
For the actions of the defendants to be deceptive a substantial portion of the public must likely to be deceived by such actions, i.e. misled by the product “ Spanish Champagne”.
Whether the Appellants had actual knowledge of infringing material and thus involved section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
For communication of copyrighted work to the public, it is important to have authorization and licence or else such a communication amounts to infringement of copyright.
Whether Defendant’s use of “an abstract of the whole” of Plaintiff’s play constitute infringement?
A series of abstractions and stock characters, which are universal in nature, are not protected by copyright.
The Idea- Expression dichotomy states ideas are not protected but expressions are.
Whether names, phone numbers, and addresses from a directory be copyrighted or not?
Compilations of facts which possess the required creativity to be considered as original can be copyrighted.
Information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by being copyrighted.
Whether the use of the Plaintiff’s logos, marks and images by the Defendants is protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000?
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief, if yes, in what terms?
The Inwood Test, laid out in the case of Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories Inv. (1982) is applied primarily to merchants and original producers of goods to monitor and control the instrumentality of infringements. The crux of the Test lies in the general knowledge or awareness that a service is being used in order to sell counterfeit goods.
What should be the standard of originality with respect to the derivative works (here, the copy-edited version of supreme court judgments) to make the work eligible to be called the author's original work and hence get protection under the Copyright Act of 1957?
The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought.
A derivative work to receive copyright protection, it must be demonstrated that the derivative work is more than just a copy of the original and must contain the author's independent skill apart from capital and labour, which is not negligible or trivial.
Whether BB and AB were entitled to use the name "Budweiser"?
Whether the exercise of the judge's discretion under s12(2) can be impugned?
Whether the Court of Appeal decision has disposed of AB's Section 11 objection to BB's application?
Whether the Court ought to exercise the discretion conferred by Section 12(2) in favour of BB?
The use of the same trademark by two different companies may not be considered trademark infringement if the two companies' products are marketed to different segments of the population and if the two companies have different reputations.