<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (12) TMI 760 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300318</link>
    <description>Copyright protects the original artistic expression of a packaging device, not unprotectable ideas such as a mug or the colour red alone. A distinctive red mug depiction with a particular arrangement and artistic treatment may qualify as an artistic work, and substantial reproduction can establish infringement without verbatim copying. Under the lay observer test, visual similarities in the red mug, golden line, black coffee and froth supported copyright infringement. Trademark registration analysis remains independent: copyright registration does not permit use of an identical or deceptively similar mark. Use of a similar device on identical goods infringes where consumers with imperfect recollection are likely to infer a common trade source or association, justifying injunctive relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 18:42:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 760 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300318</link>
      <description>Copyright protects the original artistic expression of a packaging device, not unprotectable ideas such as a mug or the colour red alone. A distinctive red mug depiction with a particular arrangement and artistic treatment may qualify as an artistic work, and substantial reproduction can establish infringement without verbatim copying. Under the lay observer test, visual similarities in the red mug, golden line, black coffee and froth supported copyright infringement. Trademark registration analysis remains independent: copyright registration does not permit use of an identical or deceptively similar mark. Use of a similar device on identical goods infringes where consumers with imperfect recollection are likely to infer a common trade source or association, justifying injunctive relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>