All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  The question is based on the reasoning and ar... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
''The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.''
Brock Lesnar's catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.
Many catchphrases such as I'm Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his 'distinctive use' has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for 'creative use' and 'considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation' to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).
Looking at the 'wide usage' of Brock Lesnar's catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the 'course of trade' by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term 'course of trade'.
Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singh's usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.
Q. Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as 'Shoes Shoes Shoes'. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as 'Shoes, Choose, Shoes'. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.
  • a)
    Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.
  • b)
    No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.
  • c)
    Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.
  • d)
    No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and pri...
As per the passage, in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his 'distinctive use' has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product and having 'shoes shoes shoes' for shoes manufacturing is not distinctive use.
View all questions of this test
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jack Ryan, who runs his business in the US, got his trademark registered there. Mr. Osama, who runs his business in India, started using a trademark same as that of Mr. Jack Ryan. Now, Mr. Jack Ryan wants to pursue infringement action. Decide.

Directions: The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Section 14( c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 states all the rights that a creator of an artistic work has. They include right to reproduce, right to make the work public, and right to grant permission to include the work in movies or films and also for any adaptation of the work. Any work which violates the rights of the creator mentioned under the Act shall be an act of infringement on the copyright of the original work. Any work which has similarity to the original work but it is still new on its own, then such works shall not be considered as works which infringe copyright. In order to prove copyright violation, reproduction of the original work must be in such a way that there must be an exact or substantial reproduction of the original matter, physically using that original matter as a model as distinguished from an independent production of the same thing, or producing it from ideas stored in the mind, if those ideas were borrowed from the alleged infringed work.In the case R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court observed that the best way to examine whether there has been copyright infringement is to see if a third party who reads or views the work thinks mistakenly that the latter is related to the former. If the ratio of R. G. Anands case is considered, then generally a third party who views a meme wont relate the same to the original work. But is this test sufficient enough to find out whether a meme is infringing copyright laws? There might be chances that the meme may be portrayed in such a way that a third party looking at it might think of it as something related to the original work. Sometimes memes degrade the original work and the owner of such work can bring a suit against such infringing material in order to stop such memes from spreading. In such cases, it will be clear and evident that such memes are infringing the copyright laws. But this might not be the case as the fair use doctrine can save the meme maker from being punished under the law.In this way, the freedom of expression and the right of a copyright holder remain parallel without affecting each other.The fair use doctrine is an essential part of the copyright law. It allows copyrighted work to be reproduced or used in a certain way. Unlike the Indian Copyright Act, the US Copyright Act provides for fair use defence.The defences include that the use is commercial or for non-profit. This checks if the use of work can be transformative or not and secondly the character or nature of copyrighted work, the amount of portion taken, and the consequence of such use on the market.Q.In 2000, WB Productions released a movie called Harry Potter, which was about a boys magical journey to a magic school. In 2008, Hari Ram Productions released a movie named Hari Putter, which was regarding a boys journey to a magical land. Now, WB Productions wants to claim copyright infringement. Decide whether their claim is valid.

Directions: The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Section 14( c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 states all the rights that a creator of an artistic work has. They include right to reproduce, right to make the work public, and right to grant permission to include the work in movies or films and also for any adaptation of the work. Any work which violates the rights of the creator mentioned under the Act shall be an act of infringement on the copyright of the original work. Any work which has similarity to the original work but it is still new on its own, then such works shall not be considered as works which infringe copyright. In order to prove copyright violation, reproduction of the original work must be in such a way that there must be an exact or substantial reproduction of the original matter, physically using that original matter as a model as distinguished from an independent production of the same thing, or producing it from ideas stored in the mind, if those ideas were borrowed from the alleged infringed work.In the case R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court observed that the best way to examine whether there has been copyright infringement is to see if a third party who reads or views the work thinks mistakenly that the latter is related to the former. If the ratio of R. G. Anands case is considered, then generally a third party who views a meme wont relate the same to the original work. But is this test sufficient enough to find out whether a meme is infringing copyright laws? There might be chances that the meme may be portrayed in such a way that a third party looking at it might think of it as something related to the original work. Sometimes memes degrade the original work and the owner of such work can bring a suit against such infringing material in order to stop such memes from spreading. In such cases, it will be clear and evident that such memes are infringing the copyright laws. But this might not be the case as the fair use doctrine can save the meme maker from being punished under the law.In this way, the freedom of expression and the right of a copyright holder remain parallel without affecting each other.The fair use doctrine is an essential part of the copyright law. It allows copyrighted work to be reproduced or used in a certain way. Unlike the Indian Copyright Act, the US Copyright Act provides for fair use defence.The defences include that the use is commercial or for non-profit. This checks if the use of work can be transformative or not and secondly the character or nature of copyrighted work, the amount of portion taken, and the consequence of such use on the market.Q.Mr. Ron Wesley wrote a book. This book became very popular as it had story line which resembled the day-to-day reality. Seeing the popularity, a drama company asked for permission from Mr. Ron Wesley to adapt the story into a drama. Mr. Ron Wesley agreed for the same. Later, a movie director who saw the drama, asked permission from the drama company to remake it into a movie. The drama company agreed for the same. Mr Ron Wesley got to know about this arrangement and now wishes to explore his legal options. Decide.

Directions: The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Section 14( c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 states all the rights that a creator of an artistic work has. They include right to reproduce, right to make the work public, and right to grant permission to include the work in movies or films and also for any adaptation of the work. Any work which violates the rights of the creator mentioned under the Act shall be an act of infringement on the copyright of the original work. Any work which has similarity to the original work but it is still new on its own, then such works shall not be considered as works which infringe copyright. In order to prove copyright violation, reproduction of the original work must be in such a way that there must be an exact or substantial reproduction of the original matter, physically using that original matter as a model as distinguished from an independent production of the same thing, or producing it from ideas stored in the mind, if those ideas were borrowed from the alleged infringed work.In the case R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court observed that the best way to examine whether there has been copyright infringement is to see if a third party who reads or views the work thinks mistakenly that the latter is related to the former. If the ratio of R. G. Anands case is considered, then generally a third party who views a meme wont relate the same to the original work. But is this test sufficient enough to find out whether a meme is infringing copyright laws? There might be chances that the meme may be portrayed in such a way that a third party looking at it might think of it as something related to the original work. Sometimes memes degrade the original work and the owner of such work can bring a suit against such infringing material in order to stop such memes from spreading. In such cases, it will be clear and evident that such memes are infringing the copyright laws. But this might not be the case as the fair use doctrine can save the meme maker from being punished under the law.In this way, the freedom of expression and the right of a copyright holder remain parallel without affecting each other.The fair use doctrine is an essential part of the copyright law. It allows copyrighted work to be reproduced or used in a certain way. Unlike the Indian Copyright Act, the US Copyright Act provides for fair use defence.The defences include that the use is commercial or for non-profit. This checks if the use of work can be transformative or not and secondly the character or nature of copyrighted work, the amount of portion taken, and the consequence of such use on the market.Q.A creates an unpublished soundtrack which he lets B to listen to it. B, who is a friend of A, copies the soundtrack and makes C listen to it. A gets to know about this and claims infringement of copyright. Will the action sustain in the court?

Direction: The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.A Maxim refers to the established principles and prepositions. That is the general rules or principles or guidelines laid down and which are to be followed by the general public. Maxims are very useful, as with the help of this particular point of law can be understood clearly and precisely and also used for the proper solution of the cases. Maxims are very widely used in various branches of law and so in the law of torts.As law is a difficult subject having various interpretations, rules, and principles. It is therefore considered necessary to have these combinations of various Latin and French words to be used for much clearer understanding. However, the only difficult part of the use of these maxims is that they have to be applied with full precaution. The person using these maxims has to make sure that whether the case in which it is applied has its application in the same manner, or whether it is an exception to the general rule, as any alterations of any of these maxims would be dangerous.Injuria Sine Damno is a legal maxim, which means injury or loss or damage so caused to the plaintiff without suffering any physical injury or damage. It is a Latin term, where Injuria refers to injury, Sine refers to without and Damno refers to a property or any physical loss. Therefore, the term refers to injury suffered without actual loss. In this case, the plaintiff doesnt have to prove the damages suffered, he only has to prove that there is some legal damage suffered by him, that is the action so brought is actionable per se. For example, where A roams around Bs house without any justification then in that case, there is a violation of the legal right of B and in such cases, this maxim is applicable.Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim, which refers to injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff but there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no violation of the legal right but the injury or damage is being suffered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cant bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law, unless there is some infringement of a legal right.The literal meaning of Damnum Sine Injuria refers to loss or damage in terms of money, property or any physical loss without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act so did was intentional and was done to cause injury to other but without infringing on the legal right of the person.Q.A number of companies dealing in cycle manufacturing in a certain area joined hands with the intention to drive Axis Cycles out of the cycle manufacturing industry, by providing the customers with extra discount. Axis Cycles lost its major share in the market. Axis Cycles filed a suit against the other companies. Decide.

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jon Snow started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes Shoes Shoes. After a year or so, Mr. Jamie Lanister also started a shoe manufacturing company which he named as Shoes, Choose, Shoes. Mr. Jon Snow got to know about it and now wants to pursue legal action. Decide.a)Yes, there will lie a legal action as both the company names are deceptively similar.b)No, there will not lie any legal action as the names are generic.c)Yes, there will lie a legal action as Mr. Jamie Lanister purposefully stole the trademark of Mr Jon Snow.d)No, there will not lie any legal action as the trademark of Mr. Jon Snow is not registered.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup