Answer:
Refer to the case University of Georgia Athletic Association (UGAA) v Laite (756 F2d 1535)
Facts of the case:
UGAA (plaintiff) football mascot is a bulldog with letter "G". UGAA also had trademark bulldog wearing a sweater with letter "G". Mr. L (defendant) marketed his Battling Bulldogs Beer as a bulldog wearing a sweater with letter G holding a football. UGAA sued and obtained an injunction against Mr. L for likelihood of confusion, i.e. buyers may be mistaken that the beer is associated with its football team. Mr. L appealed
The appeals court affirmed.
Appeals court agreed that there were sufficient evidence by the district court to argue for likelihood of confusion. The beer cans were colored with University colors and the similarity of the bulldog picture on the beer and the UGAA's registered marks. Furthermore, the court found that Mr. L is intended to use the mascot to promote his beer: "there can be no doubt that Mr. L hoped to sell "Battlin' Bulldog Beer" not because the beer tastes great, but because the cans would catch the attention of University of Georgia football fans." The fact that a disclaimer "Not associated with the University of Georgia" that appeared on the can doesn't allow defendant to use similar trademark logos.
Answer:
As per the stated case, XC Corp. Ltd. was found to be imitating the designs of S café locations in city S.
In light of the case, three parties, that is, S, W, S Corporation have a clear standing to bring suit in country C against XC Corp. Ltd. since the company violated the US Trademark law.
As per the US Trademark Law, a person, company or institution that is found imitating the trademark (symbols, designs, color, shape, size) of other company would face serious legal actions and in extreme cases may face strict imprisonment.
Moreover, the plaintiff has to prove that his/her company has a valid design and they were the first one who created the designs. Hence, another's use of the same design would likely to cause confusion to consumers.
In such a scenario, parties like S, W and S Corporation would be liable to bring suit against the XC Corp.
Answer:
Case summary:
U.S. Polo Association (USPA) which is not-for-profit organization runs a polo sport corporation and is the governing body of the sport in U.S. the corporation earns by providing royalties rights to several brands and one of them is the fragrance produced in the apparel category for men. This logo of USPA fragrance carries two men playing polo. In 2009, the company produced 10,000 units of fragrance using packaging featuring its logo as used on apparels. Another company PRL has been into manufacturing of fragrance for men apparels since 1978 and the logo of this brand wherein one player is playing polo. This fragrance had been sold by the company for over 32 years and is voted as one of the best fragrances. PRL sued USPA over the use of similar logo and trademark in the packaging of its fragrance.
Conclusion:
To prevail in an action for trademark infringement, PRL must establish the clear relationship of the logos of both the brands of fragrances. PRL has to prove in the court that the business of both the disputing parties is same and the product fragrance is similar. PRL has been into this business since 32 years and had been using this trademark wherein one player is playing polo sport since its inception but USPA had used this kind of logo where two players are playing polo instead of one depicting the similar form of trademark as PRL has registered and owns. This way by being in the same business, PRL can prevail this case of suing USPA for trademark infringement and also by proving the above mentioned facts in the court.
Thus PRL have to go by legal procedure in stating that the logo used by USPA is illegal and a trademark infringement. And to prove this it has to present the logos of both the companies and has to prove how they both resemble to each other. This way the court will get the idea about the trademark infringement and will favor PRL in this case.