<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pace Legal  Intellectual Property &#187; Trademarks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pacelegal.com.au/category/trademarks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:10:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>&#8216;Freeway&#8217; Ricky Ross sues for theft of his image</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/freeway-ricky-ross-sues-for-theft-of-his-image/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/freeway-ricky-ross-sues-for-theft-of-his-image/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dilution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jay-Z]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misappropriation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Ross]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Ross vs. Rick Ross lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ricky "Freeway" Ross]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teflon Don]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Leonard Roberts II]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As reported by MiamiNewTimes, former drug dealer and prisoner  LA based Ricky &#8220;Freeway&#8221; Ross, has brought legal action against Miami Rapper Rick Ross (William Leonard Roberts II).
He is  seeking monetary damages of $10 million dollars,  claiming he has been unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff from profiting from his image.
The former drug dealer has joined Shawn Carter [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/freeway-ricky-ross-sues-for-theft-of-his-image/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Supreme Court Issues First Ruling on Legality of Keyword Advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/canadian-supreme-court-issues-first-ruling-on-legality-of-keyword-advertising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/canadian-supreme-court-issues-first-ruling-on-legality-of-keyword-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Columbia Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceptive and misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google adwords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Career Training Institutions Agency v Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S7(b) Trade-Marks Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark keyword advertising]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=740</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google adwords program has  given rise to legal controversy, provoking a wave of litigation across several countries. However, until recently no Canadian Court had addressed the legality of an advertiser using a competitor&#8217;s trade mark related keywords in terms of whether this constituted either trade mark infringement or false, deceptive or misleading advertising.
In the case [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/canadian-supreme-court-issues-first-ruling-on-legality-of-keyword-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV &#8211; Attack on comparative advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/l%e2%80%99oreal-sa-v-bellure-nv-attack-on-comparative-advertising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/l%e2%80%99oreal-sa-v-bellure-nv-attack-on-comparative-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparative advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comparative Advertising Directive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparison lists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Court of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[L'Oreal SA v Bellure NV [2010] EWCA Civ 535]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smell-a-like perfumes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tort of unfair competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Directive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unjust enrichment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the advertising world competitors frequently make use of their competitor&#8217;s trademark, which is an entirely legitimate practice. Comparative advertising is encouraged as long as it is not unlawful or deceptive. It can serve to highlight the strengths or aspects of a company&#8217;s products or services relative to those of a competitor. However Trade mark [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/l%e2%80%99oreal-sa-v-bellure-nv-attack-on-comparative-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court refuses AutoDESK trademark protection for .dwg file extension</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/court-refuses-trademark-protection-for-file-extension/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/court-refuses-trademark-protection-for-file-extension/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 01:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AutoCAD .dwg trademark claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autodesk Inc v Dassault Solidworks Corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[functionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks for file extensions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=642</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Autodesk Inc v Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation 
In the case of Autodesk Inc v Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation,  the District Court for the Northern District Court of California has rejected Autodesk&#8217;s claim for a trademark over the file extension .dwg used in their AutoCAD software.
Autodesk sued Dassault Systems after Dassault produced software products including the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/court-refuses-trademark-protection-for-file-extension/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lion Nathan loses right to Barefoot Radler trademark in High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/e-j-gallo-winery-pty-ltd-v-lion-nathan-australia-pty-ltd/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/e-j-gallo-winery-pty-ltd-v-lion-nathan-australia-pty-ltd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 16:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[authorised user of a foreign trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BAREFOOT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BAREFOOT RADLER]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E J Gallo Winery Pty Ltd v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gallo Winery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lion Nathan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[use as a trademark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[LION NATHAN LOSES RIGHT TO BAREFOOT RADLER TRADEMARK AGAINST GALLO WINERY &#8211; E J GALLO WINERY PTY LTD V LION NATHAN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
US owned E. J. Gallo Winery, the second largest producing wine company in the world,  had previously brought trademark infringement proceedings against Lion Nathan in relation to the use of Gallo&#8217;s trademark [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/e-j-gallo-winery-pty-ltd-v-lion-nathan-australia-pty-ltd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ECJ rules in Google&#8217;s favour in trade mark keyword infringement case</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/ecj-rules-in-googles-favour-in-trade-mark-keyword-infringement-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/ecj-rules-in-googles-favour-in-trade-mark-keyword-infringement-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNRRH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cour de Cassation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Court of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google adwords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google france]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keywords and trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Louis Vuitton Malletier SA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luteciel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LVMH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sponsored links and trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viaticum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/?p=544</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton have lost their court action against Google alleging  Google&#8217;s  practice of selling keywords such as &#8216;Vuitton&#8217; to advertisers  constitutes trade mark infringement.
The basis for LVMH&#8217;s argument was that when internet consumers search for luxury branded products through Google, search results were displayed  competing or counterfeit products.
LVMH had argued that Google [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/ecj-rules-in-googles-favour-in-trade-mark-keyword-infringement-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guylian sunk in chocolate seahorse trade mark appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/guylian-sunk-in-seahorse-chocolate-trade-mark-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/guylian-sunk-in-seahorse-chocolate-trade-mark-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bounty shape trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chocolaterie Guylian NV v Commissioner of Japan Patent Office 2008]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chocolateriere Guylian N.V v Registrar of Trade Marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inherent distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kenman Kandy Australia Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Koninklijk Phillips Electronics N.V v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lindt chocolate bunny trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mars bar shape mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S41]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seahorse chocolate; shape marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shape mark Cadbury Freddo Frog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shape trade mark Toblerone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark; shape trade mark; guylian]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/wordpress/?p=361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guylian, Belgian’s most widely known chocolatier, have lost an appeal before the Federal Court of Australia against the decision of the the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks denying their application to have their praline shaped seahorse chocolates registered as trade marks.
The Federal Court in Chocolatiere Guylian N.V v Registrar of Trade Marks, held [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/guylian-sunk-in-seahorse-chocolate-trade-mark-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>67</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dior Trademark &#8211; An alluring sign for trademark lawyers</title>
		<link>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/dior-trademark-an-alluring-sign-for-trademark-lawyers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/dior-trademark-an-alluring-sign-for-trademark-lawyers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christian dior trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copad SA v Christian Dior Courture SA & Ors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark exhaustion of rights doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark licensing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pacelegal.com.au/wordpress/?p=193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case raises questions about the validity of the defence of the exhaustion of rights doctrine in trademark law in the re-sale of luxury goods. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pacelegal.com.au/dior-trademark-an-alluring-sign-for-trademark-lawyers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

