Tag Archives: Brands and Trademarks

Court Rules on Playboy Domain Name Dispute

IPEC dismisses Playboy domain name claim

Court Rules on Playboy Domain Name DisputeThe Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has published its judgment in Ross v Playboy Enterprises International, Inc [2016] EWHC 1379 (IPEC). The court dismissed the claimant’s claim for declarations of non-infringement, groundless threats and entitlement to retain a domain name.

The claim arose out of the claimant’s ownership of the playboy.london domain name. The defendant, as owner of the world famous PLAYBOY trade marks, relied on a decision under the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) stating the domain should be transferred to it. The court held it did not have the authority to overturn the UDRP decision except in the case of manifest error, which was not relevant to this claim.

Evidence adduced at trial showed the claimant intended to use the domain name to chronicle the childhood and adolescence of his children. Access to the website would be restricted to users who had been given login details by the claimant. Accordingly, the court found there could be no trade mark infringement because the claimant was not selling any goods or services from the website. However, the judge ruled the claimant could not rely on the groundless threats provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

The claimant claimed his use of the word PLAYBOY in the domain name was an ironic reference to himself. The judge concluded this irony relied on the reputation and goodwill in the PLAYBOY mark. Accordingly, the claimant’s use of the domain name would lead to passing off.

The court held it did not have the power to overturn the UDRP decision and the application for a declaration was an attempt to circumvent the court’s lack of jurisdiction. The judge further reasoned that granting a declaration stating there had been no trade mark infringement would not serve any useful purpose, since a similar declaration in relation to passing off could not be made. On this basis the claim was dismissed.



Formula One Trade Mark Dispute IP Licensing

Formula One Trade Mark Dispute underlines need for Careful IP Licensing

Formula One Trade Mark Dispute IP LicensingThe High Court recently published its judgment in a case involving the Marussia Formula One team. The case related to a claim for trade mark infringement and underlined the importance of businesses ensuring they properly manage their IP rights.

 

The court heard how the claimant had licensed its trade mark to the defendant Formula One team, but that the defendant team had continued to use the trade mark after the licence term had expired. The team was refused permission by Formula One’s governing body to change its name during the course of a season, leaving them with little option but to continue racing and infringe the claimant’s trade mark as a result. Refusing to race would mean forfeiting the team’s entitlement to a substantial amount of money due to it.

 

The court held that the defendant therefore had no real prospect of proving, as it had asserted, that the use of the claimant’s trade mark had occurred with the claimant’s consent. It further held that the defences advanced by the defendant were unlikely to succeed and that the defendant would need to provide £1.75 million by way of security for costs if it wished to proceed to trial.

 

The case shows the importance of considering IP rights at an early stage and ensuring any agreements entered into properly reflect the needs of the parties and protect their interests. In particular, the defendant in this case would have benefitted from ensuring the licence was not timed to expire part way through a season. The facts of the case show the balance of power was strongly weighted in the trade mark owner’s favour, since the licensee was heavily dependent on the owner providing the funds which would allow it to participate in the Formula One season.

 

Many SMEs could potentially benefit by holding their IP in a separate IP company and having the holding company licence that IP to the company through which the business is operated. This has the benefit of protecting a business’ investment in its IP by ring-fencing its intangible assets. This will be particularly important if the main business falls into difficulties and should be considered at an early stage.

 

Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd v Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 809 (Ch)

Pantone 2685C

High Court rules Cadbury’s purple trade mark is not a series mark

TMThe judgment in the case of Cadbury UK Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks [2016] EWHC 796 (Ch), 18 April 2016 has been published, in which Cadbury’s appeal against a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office was dismissed by the High Court. The decision marks the latest in a line of cases which have passed through the senior courts in relation to the shade of purple used in Cadbury’s Dairy Milk line of chocolate, namely Pantone 2685C.

Cadbury and market rival Nestlé were previously engaged in a legal battle after the UK Intellectual Property Office’s decision to reject Nestlé’s opposition against Cadbury’s application to register the colour purple as a trade mark. This decision was upheld by the High Court but subsequently overturned in the Court of Appeal.

The latest claim relates to the colour purple, with the mark being described as follows:

The colour purple… applied to the whole visible surface, or being the predominant colour applied to the whole visible surface, of the packaging of the goods.The mark consists of the colour purple (Pantone 2685C)… applied to the whole visible surface, or being the predominant colour applied to the whole visible surface, of the packaging of the goods.

Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A v Cadbury UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1174, Cadbury sought to have the description of its mark interpreted as two marks within a series and to have the second mark in the series (if the mark could indeed be interpreted as such) deleted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal raised the point of whether Cadbury’s mark could be interpreted as a sign within the meaning of section 1 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, so as to give rise to the possibility of an application being filed for invalidation under section 3 of the Act.

In an effort to prevent the possibility of such an attack against its mark, Cadbury attempted to have the mark interpreted as a series mark pursuant to section 41 of the Act so that the more general description could be deleted, thereby leaving the more specific phrase intact and defending against any subsequent application for invalidity. Mr John Baldwin QC, sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division, held that the registration was not a series mark within the meaning of section 41 of the Act.

He drew upon the judgment of the Court of Appeal and in particular the judgment of Sir John Mummery, stating that the description accompanying the mark was “of an unknown number of signs including not just the colour purple but other in which the colour purple predominates. I do not think [Sir John] is coming close to suggesting that the description is of two marks or of a series of marks”.

The judge accordingly upheld the hearing officer’s decision and dismissed Cadbury’s appeal.

Conclusions

This case, together with the previous Cadbury litigation, underlines the importance of ensuring trade marks are clearly and precisely defined. This is particularly important in the case of unusual trade marks, such as applications for colours as trade marks. Cadbury’s difficulties, together with the high threshold for registration of colours as trade marks, are by no means a thing of the past, with Tiffany having successfully registered Pantone 1837. This case highlights the need for precision and shows that trade mark law is constantly evolving as new strategies emerge which depart from traditional methods of protecting brand identity.

FTC ruling on blog paid reviews

Intellectual Property Value – Do You Need Specialist Skills to Value IP?

What Is Your IP Worth?As intellectual property (IP) becomes more recognised as an asset class, interest in it is increasing – so much so that apparently according to the IPKAT Hong Kong property surveyors have been trying to break into assessing the intellectual property value in a business.

They recently called upon overseas bodies (for example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to promote the virtues of having surveyors perform IP valuations.

As the IPKAT says, the question is whether

  1. IP valuation is a sub-category of business valuations or a self-contained professional endeavor; and
  2. (ii) in either case, to what extent must an IP valuation professional understand the legal context of IP rights?

The starting point is to consider what we mean by IP

What is IP?

The term IP is generally associated with registrable rights like trademarks, patents and designs.  However, SMEs also have many non registrable IP issues to consider, such as copyright, know how, trade secrets, database rights, organisational knowledge and more.

Unless an SME takes advice to identify, manage, and protect its IP assets it could be seriously exposed because intangibles are a poorly understood asset class.

There is no one size fits all when it comes to determining a business’s risks and opportunities. Even  two businesses in the same industry, with similar business model, may have different issues to address depending on how they develop their businesses and what contracts and other arrangements they have in place, For one business copyright may be the critical asset, while for another it may be the database or a patent.

They will not necessarily be equally desirable to an investor as their value on exit would be impacted by a number of factors unique to each business.

Why have an IP valuation?

One issue a valuation will consider is whether there is key IP underpinning a company’s competitive advantage. If so, another question is whether that competitive advantage is adequately protected.

Banks and investors may accept IP assets as valuable security to finance an SME’s growth if the business can demonstrate that those IP assets underpin revenues and forecasts, and impact cash flow.

How the strength of the IP asset is critical

A fictional example may help convey how IP works.

Say a company has developed an innovative solution that becomes well known in its industry. That competitors will copy a good idea is inevitable. So, if a company’s asset isn’t protected with a patent or other barrier to entry, it is more vulnerable to copy cats.

However, where there are no patents to protect the product, it is a mistake to assume there is little you can do to prevent a competitor stealing market share. You may not be able to stop them creating similar products but you may be able to protect your competitive position and create barriers to entry through the name you choose for the product.

The name is a potential barrier to entry because it can stop competitors using similar ones to identify their offerings – but only if it is a name that the business can uniquely use.

If the business chooses a generic name (that is, one that describes what the product does, rather than an actual name), the name will not be capable of protecting the company’s asset. This is so even if the company registers that name as a trademark combined with a logo. Such a registration would effectively only protect the logo where the name is generic.

So the upshot is that the business has a product that gives it a competitive advantage. It has a valuable asset, but not as valuable as it would be if the name was capable of stopping competitors stealing market share when providing ‘me too’ solutions.

That not all names are equally effective at containing IP value is not generally well understood

Shifting value of IP

IP value is rarely static. Intellectual property rights can change in value over time for a variety of reasons. For example, when you first patent something, it’s possible you have a unique solution to a problem so that your patent provides a strong competitive advantage. But then as other solutions to the problem emerge, the value of your patent may be reduced. On the other hand, if you have successfully marketed your product, despite your patent becoming less critical to your competitive advantage, your trademark may have gained value as your name recognition has increased.

So, failing to give a product a distinctive name that is capable of functioning as a trademark, or not checking whether other people’s rights might prevent use of the chosen name long term impacts the value that is generated, and that would inevitably depress the value of your IP.

IP value is impacted by the choices you make

The above example is designed to illustrate how the IP in question, or the choices you make impact IP value. You need to be ready to make changes if needs be. However, names are not the sum total of IP. There are so many other issues that impact IP value.

There are a number of IP actions required in order to build value and wealth. Implementing effective contracts is a hugely important, but misunderstood aspect of IP protection.

Because it is never possible to foresee what problems and scenarios might arise for a business in the future, it is prudent to secure its IP rights to the fullest extent, so the business has adequate protection to protects its position in the market.

Therefore, identifying IP rights, and protecting and managing them, is essential for any ambitious business.

Conclusion

Clearly IP valuation is not an area in which surveyors would have appropriate transferable skills.

IP and business are closely intertwined. In practice, you need to take both into account. That is why it requires the combined skills of business and IP experts to get the most effective IP valuation and strategic advice.

In a future post, I will explore the different methods for valuing IP.

IP Revolution Book Launch 1

Intellectual Property Revolution – Book Launch – Video Highlights

IP Revolution Book Launch 1

The Intellectual Property Revolution, my second book, was launched with great success on 13 October 2015 at the Institute of Directors in London.

For those of you who were unable to attend the event the next best thing is to watch the videos of the night.

Daniel Priestley of Entrevo, who runs a global entrepreneurship accelerator programme known as Key Person of Influence (that I myself have attended) gave the introductions for the night.

He also took us through the ages pointing out that at one time it was ownership of land that enabled people to build fortunes, these people built themselves a reputation and became influential. Then after this agricultural age came the industrial revolution where people built their fortunes by  owning the means of production. In the digital economy it is intellectual property that is the means to building fortunes. He said millennials would rather spend all their time and money to build start-ups  than purchasing houses or land.

 

Next up was Will Critchlow of Distilled, CEO of a digital marketing agency based in London with offices in the USA. He reinforced the importance of using the right name and protecting intellectual property rights very early on, an issue he himself had encountered at the early stages of his business ventures while at school. Intellectual Property, in particular securing a trade mark helps provide businesses big or small with strong foundations to securely expand and build a reputation they establish. This will strengthen branding strategies becoming real investments rather than failing later on.

 

 

Then finally, I spoke about the importance of taking early IP advice in order to position yourself for maximum value if you succeed, and reduce the risk of disaster. When overlooked, IP can be damaging to the core features of any business. For example, a poor choice of name can be a real set back. This is something I discuss in more detail in my blog Intellectual Property Value – Do You Need Specialist Skills to Value IP?

IP is so important to any business, as the internet now dominates our daily lives, it is the ownership of these intangibles which is so necessary to protect. At Azrights, we offer a fixed price service that provides early stage businesses with comprehensive advice concerning Intellectual Property rights and strategic building of them.

 

There was a chance for guests to mingle over canapes and here are some vox pox and highlights of the event. The vox pox discussions give some insight into why attendees believe IP is so important in today’s society.

While the highlights below will give you a general flavour of the eventful evening.

Since the launch, I have revised the conclusion of the book, as this was a chapter I struggled to write last year. At the time, I wanted to finish the book so I used something. However, having had time to  reflect over the festive period, I have changed the conclusion, and am now very happy that the book will be an easy, insightful read for businesses interested in IP.

The new conclusion fits much better with the book as a whole being a kind of synopsis of the book and summarises the transformative effects of Intellectual Property rights. If you don’t have time to read the whole book, you’d now get a strong indication of what the book is all about by reading just the conclusion and perhaps revisiting the book when time allows.

Trademark Infringement Dispute Over Search Results Won By Amazon

Trademark InfringementThe trademark infringement claim by watchmakers MultiTime Machine (MTM) has been dismissed following a ruling in favour of online retailer Amazon. In our previous blog Trademark Infringement Trial Of Amazon Over Search Results, we commented on the zero success rate of similar disputes and the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court continues this pattern.

In short, the court held that Amazon does not violate the Lanham Act when, instead of notifying the consumer who is searching for “MTM Special Ops” that those products are not sold, it simply offers competing products sold under different brands.

As the National Law Review reports, the decision in this case weakens the “initial interest confusion” doctrine in the Ninth Circuit and will likely be perceived as a significant victory for online retailers.

MTM Special Ops remains visible within Amazon’s search box and nothing on the page indicates that Amazon does not actually sell the expensive military-style MTM products.

The case is MultiTime Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Read the full National Law Review Article here.

Protection Of Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Infringement – How To Stop Alibaba From Selling Your (Fake) Products

Protection of Intellectual PropertyIntellectual property (IP) infringement is damaging for any business, and can be a particular problem for those that sell products online through platforms like Alibaba.

Chances are that if you have a business and your business has a website, you count as one of thousands of growing digital companies that export their IP to the world. This also exposes you to risks that you are probably unaware of. IP and copyright in particular, are complex areas of law. Alas, copyright infringement and counterfeits take a stronghold where others seek to exploit your commercial endeavours at your expense. One prime suspect is China, where e-commerce piracy is still very prevalent.

It only takes a moment to understand why it is important to police your brand against intellectual property infringement when you analyse the number of sales made on Chinese e-commerce platforms, such as Alibaba. According to an article on fortune.com, last year, Alibaba represented 86% of China’s online mobile shopping, with 367 million active users, which, on the average, each active buyer purchases 58 packages a year. It has over 10 million active sellers, which dwarves Amazon’s 2 million. In short, it is a marketplace like no other.

It is unfortunate and nonetheless very common, that brands suffer at the behest of counterfeit sellers in this megalith-type online marketplace where copying and counterfeit trading is rife.

How To Put An End To It

Despite the growing complaints against Alibaba, counterfeit and copyright infringement is still a big problem. Those who have filed a lawsuit against Alibaba Group Holding earlier in May include Kering SA who own Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent amongst others.

In order to stop Alibaba from selling your (fake) products, they need to be alerted that there is a seller who is selling unauthorized copies or fake versions of your product. To do this, you have to follow a procedure which deals with IP complaints on the Alibaba platform. This involves proving the ownership of your IP rights through a specially developed ‘AliProtect’ platform.

Through ‘AliProtect’, users are able to identify the infringer and demand that the infringement be brought to an end by removing the fake listing. It is not as easy as it sounds. Also, as a listing is removed, another appears. Further, proving ownership might be problematic. For example, in the UK you do not need to register copyright, whereas in the USA or China it is usual to do so. Consequently, playing a game of online “whack-a-mole” can be distracting and also disruptive to your business. If you ignore it, you risk putting your brand’s hard earned reputation, and takings, on the line.

Get Help With Intellectual Property Infringement

It’s difficult to make a complaint about intellectual property infringement when you are not sure how copyright or trademark ownership issues are decided on these platforms. It can be a time consuming exercise which will divert your attention and energy from what you ought to be doing.

Involving IP lawyers who understand counterfeits, and intellectual property infringement can save you time, energy and money in the long run by diverting sales back to authorized distributors and sellers.

Azrights has assisted clients with such problems. Identifying intellectual property, and advising on strategic, cost effective protection is an important component of such advice. Issuing take down notices to infringing parties, is essential, as is policing your brand in order to maintain its commercial allure. Get in touch to find out how we might be able to help you fight unauthorized sellers distributing fake copies of your products .

Brand and Trademark

Crocodile Wars – Lacoste’s Latest Victory On Brand And Trademark Over Polish Company’s Use Of Caiman Mark

Crocodile War - Logos

Brand and TrademarkBrand and trademark establishment is of central importance to any successful business. Maintaining a brand’s image is essential, and using trademark law to protect business reputation is an important component of that. One way of doing so is through opposition of trademark applications as demonstrated by a recent case between French retailer Lacoste and Polish clothing company ‘KAJMAN’.

The ruling of the EU General Court agreed with Lacoste’s view that there is a risk that the use of the caiman would cause confusion amongst consumers, resulting in a potential loss of prestige. The opposition against the Polish company’s application to register the sign for leather goods, clothing and footwear was therefore upheld.

Confusion can arise as a result of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity. The Court agreed that from a conceptual perspective there was an average degree of similarity. However, visually, any such likeness was in fact very minor. Despite clear differences between the two logos, it was nevertheless necessary to appreciate the possibility of the public “recognizing and retaining a memory of the imperfect representation”. Considering that both ‘KAJMAN’ and Lacoste provide similar services the focus was on the risk that the two companies may in fact be perceived to be variants of one another.

Brand And Trademark Dispute

One of the arguments put forward by ‘KAJMAN’ was that allowing the Lacoste mark such extensive protection would result in an “unjustified monopoly” on all crocodile marks. However, the General Court was keen on recognizing the importance of being able to oppose a trademark registration specifically where there is concern over damage to a brand’s reputation.

It is interesting to note that this is not the first brand and trademark dispute in which the French company has attempted to seek exclusivity with regards to its use of the crocodile on the basis of potential confusion for its consumers. The longest lasting dispute involves Singapore based rival Crocodile International, with Lacoste attempting to assert trademark rights in China and, as of recently, in New Zealand.

In 2008, it further targeted a Gloucestershire dental practice on the basis that they registered the logo of a grinning reptile to be used on their welcome sign. Shortly after, clothing supplier Baker Street Clothing became another one of its targets after registering the mark ‘Alligator’. In both cases Lacoste was unsuccessful. The decisions were important in what seemed to be a move to limit the scope of the Lacoste trademark monopoly.

Judging from the recent victory over ‘KAJMAN’ however, it is clear that the French company remains undeterred and it seems that the Courts have begun to take on a more strict approach in what they deem to be potential trademark infringements.

For more details on the recent Lacoste victory see the article here.

Alibaba Counterfeit Goods

Alibaba Counterfeit Goods Lead To Trademark Infringement Disputes

Alibaba Counterfeit GoodsA recent dispute involving Alibaba counterfeit goods has risen between Alibaba Group Holding Ltd and a US apparel trade group over counterfeit products. Despite the attempts of the ecommerce giant Alibaba to fight selling of counterfeit goods on both Alibaba and Aliexpress, a US company is calling to put Alibaba’s Taobao site back on its list of “Notorious Markets” for counterfeit goods.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, Alibaba has had for a long time to deal with complaints from brand owners about counterfeit products ranging from luxury brands to sportswear sold on its Taobao platform. From our experience, many small businesses face such problems and find them very difficult to handle unless there is professional help on their side.

Alibaba And Its Counterfeit Approach

Generally, Alibaba has been criticized for being too soft towards counterfeit sellers. As a result, Alibaba has launched a new English version of its counterfeit reporting system called “TaoProtect”. Although AliBaba has another platform called “AliProtect” which covers its other websites, TaoProtect has been developed exclusively for dealing with a range of Intellectual Property (IP) complaints such as copyright, patent and trademark infringement and unfair use of those IP rights. This reveals the scale of the problem as well as the serious steps conglomerates such as Alibaba take to ensure IP rights are effectively protected.

Complaint To Alibaba – Is It Effective?

With the launch of the English version of TaoProtect, UK and other Western European companies would be able to access easily the counterfeit reporting system. Alibaba’s US-based senior IP protection manager commented that “because the success and integrity of our marketplaces depend on consumer trust, we have comprehensive policies and practices in place to fight IP infringement.”

The improvement in their system comes partly as a result of the lawsuit filed against Alibaba by companies like Gucci and Yves St. Laurent. The suit was filed by Kering (the fashion house which owns these brands) last May. A US District Judge in Manhattan granted some of them an immediate order barring sales of goods on Alibaba.

Lexology commented that, generally, brand owners that have secured trademark registrations in China, the US and wherever else your business operates is the safest route to tackle online infringement.

However, users of the Alibaba platforms have complained about “the slow, sluggish, and confusing systems Taobao uses to process takedown requests” for offending listings.

Do You Have The Same Problem?

Many small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) face counterfeit, trademark and copyright infringement issues. Therefore, if you need specific help, know that we have the experience of dealing with a variety of platforms in relation to trademark infringement and similar issues.

Brand Planning

Brand Planning – A Lesson Learned From A Golden Bear

Brand PlanningFor companies, brand planning is an important aspect in brand execution. As far as we know, the best brands are also the best planned brands including the legal side. In a recent turn of events Lindt, the Swiss chocolatier, has emerged victorious in a long-standing battle with Haribo, the German confectionary company that has been attempting to stop Lindt from selling gold chocolate bears since 2012.  According to an article published in the Guardian, Haribo had won the first round of the battle, when a German court banned future sales of the Lindt chocolate bears in December 2012. That ruling, however, has since been overturned on appeal, noting that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two products.

Interestingly, Lindt had lost its fight against German chocolatiers, Confiserie Riegelein, which was producing similar chocolate bunnies. One might say what-goes-around-comes-around when it comes to trademarks and confectionary sweet companies, however, Haribo is likely to be bitter about this ruling.

The point in case was that, according to Haribo, the chocolate bear wrapped in gold foil accompanied with a red ribbon was an appropriation of Haribo’s Goldbären brand and to that effect, the chocolate bear was consolidating a market position on the back of investment and brand awareness built by Haribo. Lindt, on the other hand, argued that the golden bear had been a variation of the golden eastern bunny chocolate and not an illegal imitation of the golden gummy bear or its corresponding logo.

Brands And Competition

Not long ago we wrote about Nestlé being blocked by rival competitor Cadbury’s in our post on: 3D Trademarks & Registered Designs – KitKat Loses Legal Fight for Four-Finger Chocolate bar.

What is easy to take from this is that where industries are particularly competitive, such as in confectionary food industry, it is a brand’s distinctiveness and the awareness surrounding that brand which allows it to survive on a global level. This is where brand planning comes in handy to assure that you know where your brand is heading, legally.

As a lawyer said “The cost of these cases is significant, but it’s about being seen to take action and ringfencing your brand and intellectual property rights as much as you can.”

This is important because trademarks are increasingly relevant in today’s digital economy, as the advent of the internet and development of internet based technologies has opened trade channels on a truly global level not seen before. Trademarks offer the most powerful forms of intellectual property (IP) protection for any brand logo or name and therefore, it is imperative that a certain amount of consideration is paid to trademarks as part of any business strategy.

Below are some trademark considerations from International Trade Mark Association (INTA) for you to bear in mind.

The Portfolio

Every business will have a trademark portfolio. This will comprise of everything from registered trademarks, marks or symbols which are in use but not yet registered, acquired trademarks through licenses, co-branding agreements with other companies and also domain names which include the trade name or trademark within it. Creating a family of trademarks and trade names will help create a stronger brand but can also strengthen the protection afforded that brand.

Brand Planning And Management

Securing rights as early as possible is always highly recommended. On that note, it is important to budget accordingly because registering a trademark in every country around the world can be both expensive and also impractical for a small-to-medium enterprises (SME) or early stage businesses. The strategy is to carefully consider which jurisdictions from a sales and marketing prospective are key to your business, conduct the necessary availability searches and register a trademark to perfect your brand in that territory as soon as it is practically possible.

An important note in managing your trademarks is also ensuring that they are used, or you risk them being revoked.

Enforcement

Keeping on top of a trademark portfolio does not mean just registering them. To increase and maximize the value in a trademark, a certain amount of maintenance is involved. This includes actively monitoring the use of your mark and actively policing your trademark with cease and desist and take down notices when you see that it is being used without authorization. A good way to police you trademark is to monitor competitor activities and trademark applications which are published in trademark journals. To do this, you may want to invest in a brand watch service which can help protect your trademarks in the most efficient way possible by bringing to attention any issues that arise as they come.

Given the online nature of most business, a good way to enforce your rights in your domain names is to make sure that you have a registered trademark and that name is contained in your domain name.

Azrights has helped many SMEs and ambitious entrepreneurs to help secure their rights, commercialize their brands and enforce their IP rights. Visit our trademark registration, trademark search, trademark disputes and brand protection services pages to see how we may help to implement an efficient and cost effective strategy for you. Alternatively, contact us and speak with one of our specialist team members to see how we can help in your brand planning.