Page 1

PLAGIARISM SCAN REPORT

Date 2021‐03‐26

Words 998

0% 100% Characters 6188

Plagiarised Unique

Content Checked For Plagiarism

CASE STUDIES OF TREADEMARKS

Case # 1
Mcdowell vs The Body Shop International PLC
The Body Shop International Plc licenced the trademark HONEYMANIA, which was the subject of this appeal of an
Opposition Board decision.
Heather Ruth McDowell have two trademarks, HONEY and Honey & Design, for makeup and other goods. She apply to the
Opposition Board to oppose the Body Shop’s registration but the opposition was discarded.
The aspirant was allowed to file evidence about her use of Honey at a convenience store site on appeal, which had already
been rejected by the Opposition Council.
The Federal Court considers the reckless buyer to be an ordinary citizen who enters the market, not a semantic expert,
when evaluating the mark as a whole and as a matter of first experience. HONEYMANIA, for example, conjured up images
of desperate need or zeal in relation to or for HONEY. The HONEY marks and the HONEYMANIA symbol also indicated
related key concepts.
The applicant established that the HONEY and HONEYMANIA marks could be confused. The Federal Court upheld the
appeal and ordered the trademarks to be refused approval by the Registrar of Trademarks.

Case # 2
Bugatti International S.A. vs Bugatti Hotels & Resorts Ltd.
Bugatti International S.A. is an automobile maker with cars described as the fastest roadsters ever, which retail for over $2
million each, begins the sole Opposition Board vote on this list. How should the decision not be on the agenda for a line
like that.
In 2011, Bugatti Hotels filed a patent application for BUGATTI to be used in connection with a variety of hospitality and real
estate facilities, including hotel services. Bugatti International, an automobile maker, was opposed to this.
In the beginning, both Bugatti Hotels and Bugatti International filed facts. Since the affiants from Bugatti Hotels did not
show up for cross‐examination, their testimony was thrown out. The proof presented by Bugatti International, which was
admitted, revealed evidence of bad faith on the part of Bugatti Hotels and cast doubt on whether it should have been
satisfied that it was allowed to use the name. The Opposition Board concluded that there was a reasonable inference that
Bugatti Hotels was engaged in domain name theft and was seeking to profit from Bugatti International's goodwill.
Bugatti Hotels has struggled to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that the logo is unique or modified to differentiate its
facilities, according to the Opposition Board.

CASE STUDIES OF COPYRIGHT

Case # 1
Apple vs Google
Apple has a history of going to court, especially when it comes to Google. After all, many businesses produce phones
based on Google's Android operating system. Steve Jobs referred to the Android as a "stolen product" many times. On this,
I'm ready to wage thermonuclear war.
 Page 2
According to sources, strains between Apple and Google were so high that former Google CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from
Apple's Board of Directors.
Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung in 2010. Because of a Mobile Application Distribution Agreement, Google had to
move in and assist Samsung. Google decided toprovide partial or absolute indemnity with respect to four patents,
according to a Google lawyer.
Motorola also sued Apple at the same time as Samsung was sued in one of the most high‐profile telecommunications
lawsuits ever. Motorola said that Apple had infringed on many patents, including one that covered how cellphones worked
on a 3G network. Motorola, on the other hand, was accused of infringing on Apple's patent on some mobile features.
The copyright lawsuit was dropped in 2012, the same year that Google bought Motorola, due to a lack of evidence from
both parties. In reality, angry judges have thrown the Apple vs Motorola case out of court three times, ordering the two
companies to work out their differences between themselves.
Despite the fact that Apple hasn't targeted Google, it's mostly because Google sells a range of iOS apps. Instead, the
corporation prefers to target companies that market Android smartphones, but it appears that Google is committed to
protecting Android.
In a joint statement issued in 2014, Apple and Google announced that they had agreed to settle all patent disputes
between them and that they would both "work together in certain fields of patent reform."
Case # 2
Gucci vs Guess
Gucci sued Guess in 2009, alleging that it had infringed on five of its patents, including the use of identical logos. Given
that Guess has been the subject of 12 copyright lawsuits in the last ten years, this is probably unsurprising. Still, before they
messed with Gucci, they had effectively fixed all previous situations nearly immediately.
Gucci's signature features, such as a green and red line on handbags, the repeating, reversed GG pattern, and the
company's use of brown and beige colours, often in combination with diamond form patterns, were all used by
Guess.Gucci, of course, triumphed, but not in the manner they had intended. Gucci had sought $221 million in damages,
but the judge advised them they only had a right to an accounting of earnings and limited the damages. Gucci only got
$4.7 million in the end.
Guess was also forbidden from using most of their designs in the future, including the brown and beige Quattro G patterns
and the CRG stripe.
What went wrong, exactly? Gucci's rebuttal.
According to the judge, Gucci has sent hundreds of cease and desist letters to organisations ranging from national brands
such as Bebe, Juicy Couture, and Williams‐Sonoma to small‐time infringers such as a counterfeiter working out of her Los
Angeles apartment and a rabbi in New York that they accused of distributing counterfeit Gucci goods to help his synagoge.
They waited for Guess because the company was going through financial problems due to counterfeiters.
Furthermore, the company has declined to offer non‐speculative court evidence.
CASE STUDY OF PATENT
Wifi ﴾WiFi﴿
WiFi is used by millions of companies and individuals on a daily basis. WLAN, as it was first known, was invented by CSIRO
radio astronomy researchers and patented in 1996.

Matched Source

No plagiarism found

Despite the fact that there were many rival technologies at the time, WLAN was innovative in that its hardware
enabled a signal to be transmitted with reduced echo, preserving signal power. WLAN was granted patent rights
as a result of this one-of-a-kind and practical invention.
The CSIRO had a hard time finding market interest in their innovation at first. Then, as the internet became
more commonly used in the early 2000s, things took off.
Following that, the CSIRO sought to persuade information technology firms to purchase licences to use the
proprietary WLAN technology. At first, this was unsuccessful, as several manufacturers used the concept without
permission.
After a long court dispute with some of the world's most important ICT firms, the CSIRO was finally able to
obtain licence agreements with roughly 90% of the industry. As of 2012, WiFi licence rights generated an
estimated $430 million in revenue.
If the invention hadn't been copyrighted in 1996, this would not have been feasible. The CSIRO was able to
benefit from its innovation thanks to the Australian government's patent, which was able to survive rigorous
legal pressure from US courts.