Welcome to IPpetite. We’re here to satisfy your weekly cravings for Intellectual Property news from all over the globe, in bite sized portions. Bon IPpetite!

1. DJ Marshmello Faces Off Against L’Oreal Over Trademark 

In March 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received an application from L’Oreal to register the trademark “The Marsh Mellow.” On October 28, however, Marshmello filed an opposition requesting that the trademark not be granted. L’Oreal has until December 7 to respond to the opposition, but there are already several legal matters in question. The most significant issue at hand involves trademark classes. There’s no doubt that “Marshmello” and “The Marsh Mellow” are both visually and auditorily similar. When L’Oreal filed for protection, though, it did so primarily under International Class 003. This is denoted as make-up preparations. For an opposition to be successful, a likelihood of confusion is required. Of course, there are other grounds for a successful opposition. Whether any of these apply, though, will be decided by the TTAB.

2. Delhi High Court Vacates Interim Injunction Against the use of “Stanley” for Cables & Wires

The Delhi High Court, in a recent decision, vacated an interim injunction granted against Mr. Sunil Agarwal, a manufacturer of cables and wires under the name ‘Stanley’. The suit that was instituted by Mr.Stanley Switchgear, a prominent manufacturer of switches, sockets, fuses, and other electronic appliances, but not including cables and wires contended that since he has been using the mark ‘Stanley’ in association with his products, (electronic appliances) since 1966, it is the prior user of the mark, and stated Mr. Agarwal had been passing off his cables and wires under the same mark since the year 2005. However, the High Court in this case dismissed the arguments of passing off, since Mr. Stanley Switchgear had not registered the impugned mark in relation to cables and wires, and only brought the instant case 13 years after the impugned goods entered the market.

3. District Court Finds Google Patent Ineligible Under Alice

On November 2, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., issued an order granting Sonos’s motion to dismiss a cause of action for infringement of Google’s U.S. Patent No. 8,583,489 (the ‘489 patent). The court found that the ‘489 patent was patent ineligible as being directed to an abstract idea. Google filed a patent infringement suit against Sonos alleging that Sonos infringed five of Google’s patents, including the ‘489 patent, which is directed to systems and methods for bookmarking media content for future availability. Sonos moved to dismiss the cause of action with respect to the ‘489 patent on the ground that it was directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as an abstract idea. The ‘489 patent relates to a method of “determining if media content is available from different content sources” and “notifying a user when the availability of the media content changes.”

4. District Court Finds Google Patent Ineligible Under Alice

On November 2, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., issued an order granting Sonos’s motion to dismiss a cause of action for infringement of Google’s U.S. Patent No. 8,583,489 (the ‘489 patent). The court found that the ‘489 patent was patent ineligible as being directed to an abstract idea. Google filed a patent infringement suit against Sonos alleging that Sonos infringed five of Google’s patents, including the ‘489 patent, which is directed to systems and methods for bookmarking media content for future availability. Sonos moved to dismiss the cause of action with respect to the ‘489 patent on the ground that it was directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as an abstract idea. The ‘489 patent relates to a method of “determining if media content is available from different content sources” and “notifying a user when the availability of the media content changes.”

5. Tech Giant Flipkart Acquires Mobile Gaming Start – Up, Mech Mocha’s Intellectual Property 

Walmart owned E- commerce company, Flipkart announced on 3rd November that it has acquired the intellectual property of mobile gaming company, Mech Mocha. Mech Mocha is a gaming company that operates “Hello Play” which is India’s first live social gaming platform. Mech Mocha is backed by several large investors such as Bloom Ventures, Shanwei Capital and Essel Partners.

A statement released by Mech Mocha stated that this acquisition will have the effect of pushing mobile gaming in the country forward through vocal or local methods. Further, it also stated that Flipkart has come up with a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the gaming ecosystem in India by providing unique social gaming to a larger audience by leveraging Flipkart’s strongly established cloud platforms, reward stores, advertisements, etc. According to Flipkart, the acquisition was carried out as an attempt for the company to scale up its gaming portfolio.

6. Krafton, PubG Mobile’s Parent Company Enters Into a User Data Protection Agreement with Microsoft Azure  

Recently banned mobile game PUBG may be making its comeback into the Indian market following an agreement entered between Krafton Inc., the South Korean based company that owns PUBG Inc. and Microsoft Azure for the protection of User’s Personal Data.

Azure is a cloud computing service that is owned by Microsoft which allows game creators to build and run their games on a global scale. The agreement allows for Krafton to directly host products that are operated by the company. like PUBG on PC, mobiles, and consoles.  

Krafton said in a press release that, “The collaboration will ensure that privacy rights are respected and relevant software will be in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.” Further, the company added that, “With privacy and data security being a top priority for Krafton, the company will be working with Microsoft to ensure personal data protection through Azure.”

7. WWE surrender Cody Rhodes trademark

According to the documents obtained by HeelByNature, the trademark for the name “Cody Rhodes” has been surrendered by the WWE. The company had first filed for the name back in 2009 and had been the trademark owner for over a decade. The trademark was filed for 10 years and had expired in October 2019. The company did not renew it back then nor in the 6 months grace period offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, a month after Cody Rhodes applied for the trademark, WWE showed interest in the trademark once again. When the USPTO refused the trademark to Cody Rhodes, the company stated that the delay was due to the COVID conditions.

8. Youtube creators can now adjust endpoints of the parts of their videos that violate copyright strike

YouTube announced that the creators on the platform who have copyright claims on their video will have it easier from now, as announced last week. Usually, when the creators got Content ID claims, they had the option to delete that particular portion of content that violated the copyright. This may have led to awkward edits and “a poor viewing experience”, Google said. Now, the creators can adjust endpoints of the portion of the video that they want to delete or mute which gives the creator flexibility on removing the claim without edits being forced and also to address potential overboard copyright claims.

Image Sources:

  1. Macau Photo Agency on Unsplash.
  2. Solen Feyissa on Unsplash.
  3.  arvin keynes on Unsplash.
  4.   Mitchell Luo on Unsplash.
  5.  Flipkart on Wikimedia. 
  6.  Kundan kumar on Pixahive.
  7.  WWE on Wikimedia.
  8. Rachit Tank on Unsplash.