Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> 43(B)log

Consumer Law

: 43(B)log

NYT on Indian "knockoffs"

By Rebecca Tushnet

The article (with pictures) is interesting, but doesn't mention the background principle of territoriality (it does nod at the well-known marks doctrine, which India follows), and it takes a fairly protectionist stance by basically equating pure copying with similarity. I'm not saying I'd advise a shoemaker to use the name Woodland with a tree mark, but to call out Cocoberry as an example of Indian borrowing of popular brands from elsewhere is a bit misleading, as Pinkberry faces plenty of US competitors who have also adopted tradenames and dresses with some obvious similarities to Pinkberry. And, returning to territoriality, if there's been a Financial Times in India since 1984, I'm not sure why it's so obvious that the London FT deserves to be able to enter the Indian market under that (descriptive) name.

Full post as published by 43(B)log on July 16, 2009 (boomark / email).