The plaintiff’s case here relied upon a detailed comparison to urge that the Defendant’s advertisement — for a directly competing tyre product — was a “substantial and material copy” of the plaintiff’s cinematograph work represented by its TV advertisement.HELD on facts, the Court finds that the advertisements were different in substance and core message…….“certain amount of disparagement (of a rival) is implicit”.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   

Related Posts