The Delhi High Court has imposed $6,000 in costs on a company for acts of forgery and fabrication that claimed false prior use. 

The Fifth Board of Appeal held the figurative BET365 mark did not lack distinctiveness for specific goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 42, after the mark was refused for, among other things, betting and gambling services in Class 41.

A WIPO panel has refused to transfer the domain name ‘inera.cloud’ because the complainant failed to demonstrate that the respondent had registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The decision is a reminder that providing evidence of a respondent's targeting of a complainant is crucial to succeed in the UDRP proceedings.

A WIPO panel has denied the transfer of the domain name ‘hoopfestbasketball.com’, notably given the respondent's long-standing prior bona fide use of the mark. The case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of providing evidence that a respondent is targeting a brand owner in an attempt to profit from its reputation. 

A WIPO panel has denied a complaint in relation to the disputed domain name ‘puntoblum.com’ because the complainant failed to prove bad-faith registration and use on the part of the respondent. The decision is a reminder that the UDRP was designed to address specific issues relating to cybersquatting, and more complex business disputes generally fall outside of its scope.

The IP Office of New Zealand has upheld the decision to reject the Indian Government's application to register BASMATI as a certification mark.

The Delhi High Court has permitted a number of defendants to sell refurbished end-of-life hard disk drives provided that they comply with certain directions.

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has re-established the validity of a first-instance judgment that held the unauthorised commercialisation of registered artistic prints on third-party handbags constituted IP infringement under the Criminal Code.

Illustrating the need for clear development of more abstract, simpler figurative marks, the Federal Supreme Court has essentially limited the scope of protection for a combination of basic geometric elements to cases of identity. 

The Peruvian Trademark Office has reaffirmed that elements such as the arrangement and presentation of registered trademarks are protected by rules that seek to punish acts of unfair competition.