Organisation: Bridgestone

Trademark Office’s failure to communicate opposition refusal to International Bureau cannot prejudice opponent’s rights

The failure to communicate an opposition refusal to the International Bureau cannot be deemed to grant protection to the Indian designation of an international registration.

02 November 2022

WTR Brand Elite analysis: August 2021

Featured in Stock market performance

The WTR Brand Elite project tracks how a defined set of brand-focused companies with industry-leading trademark teams perform against stock market indices.

23 September 2021

Reasonable costs incurred in related administrative proceedings can be claimed in civil lawsuit

In a dispute between Bridgestone Corporation and a Chinese tyre manufacturer, the Suzhou Intermediate Court has awarded Bridgestone the maximum amount of statutory damages and ordered the defendant to cover the reasonable costs incurred by Bridgestone in opposing the infringing marks.

05 October 2020

Republic of Panama successfully defends itself against international arbitration claim filed by Bridgestone

The Tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes has dismissed a $20 million claim filed by Bridgestone Licensing Services Inc and Bridgestone Americas Inc against the Republic of Panama.

07 September 2020

Auto industry surges, finance brands most active: inside the ‘.brand’ data

New data provides insight into how the early '.brand' domain adopters are deploying their assets, with the automotive industry domain numbers racing ahead in recent months.

20 April 2020

America first... for now: how Chinese and European brands are closing the gap

Exclusive analysis reveals why major US brands are feeling the pressure of increased competition in the global marketplace – and how they can fight back.

13 February 2018

Infringing company directors spend night in prison

In a trademark infringement suit filed by Bridgestone Corporation, the Delhi High Court came down heavily on defendant Tolins Tyres Pvt Ltd for taking a false stand before the court and ordered the company directors to be taken into police custody for a night.

08 May 2017

General Court leaves no stone unturned

The General Court of the European Union has dismissed an appeal against a previous decision of the OHIM Second Board of Appeal and confirmed that the figurative mark AEROSTONE and the word mark STONE were similar, and that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

12 February 2016

Bridgestone ordered to pay $5 million in damages in RIVERSTONE case

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has ordered Bridgestone Corporation and Bridgestone Licensing Services Inc to pay, jointly and severally, $5 million in damages to Muresa and Tire Group of Factories Ltd Inc. The court found that the filing by Bridgestone of an opposition which had resulted in the cessation of the commercialisation of products under the RIVERSTONE mark had been made in bad faith and in a hasty manner.

08 September 2014

POTENZA decision: where you sell matters as much as what you sell

In <I>Bridgestone Corporation v Campagnolo SRL</I>, the Federal Court has upheld a decision of the registrar of trademarks finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the mark POTENZA for bicycle parts and accessories, and the mark POTENZA for tires, tubes and inner wheels. Among other things, the court held that only “predictable and usual” channels of trade had to be considered; hypothetical or possible channels of trade were not to be considered.

17 March 2014