Skip to content

King & Wood Mallesons Pulse

  • Topics
    • All Topics
    • Carbon markets
    • Competition & consumer
    • Consumer protection
    • ESG
    • Future energy
    • Hydrogen
    • Inhouse Counsel
    • International Arbitration
    • Intellectual Property
    • Technology
  • Jurisdictions
    • Australia
    • China
    • Hong Kong
    • Singapore
    • Global
  • Specialty Blogs
    • In Competition
    • International Arbitration
    • IP Whiteboard
  • Authors

King & Wood Mallesons Pulse

  • Topics
    • All Topics
    • Carbon markets
    • Competition & consumer
    • Consumer protection
    • ESG
    • Future energy
    • Hydrogen
    • Inhouse Counsel
    • International Arbitration
    • Intellectual Property
    • Technology
  • Jurisdictions
    • Australia
    • China
    • Hong Kong
    • Singapore
    • Global
  • Specialty Blogs
    • In Competition
    • International Arbitration
    • IP Whiteboard
  • Authors

funfactory

Safari Snorkel mark distinctive overall – but is it a pyrrhic victory?

Safari Snorkel mark distinctive overall – but is it a pyrrhic victory?

17 January 2014
By Bill Ladas
In a case involving the rarefied world of air rams and air intake snorkels for vehicles, an opposition against the composite mark below (featuring the words SAFARI SNORKEL) has failed.
Read on

Speciality Blogs

  • In Competition
  • International Arbitration
  • IP Whiteboard

More From IP Whiteboard

  • IP Whiteboard

Trending Topics

  • Dispute resolution & litigation
  • Hong Kong
  • Litigation
  • Technology
View All Topics

Most Viewed

Bilateral relations for Australia & China enter a new chapter

Read More

ASIC flexes muscles in scam and phishing takedowns

Read More
King & Wood Mallesons
©2025 King & Wood Mallesons

Follow Us

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Subscribe to KWM Pulse
Terms of use & legal notices | Privacy statement
©2025 King & Wood Mallesons