افراسیاب، محبوب (1397). مالکیت صنعتی در نظام حقوقی ایران با تأکید بر رویة قضایی، تهران، علم و دانش.
بابایی، المیرا (1393). علامت تجاری و ضمانت اجرای مدنی، تهران، مجد.
بختیاروند، مصطفی؛ مطهره اعرابی جوشقانی (1397). «تقلید طنزآمیز از علامت تجاری دیگری، ناقض حقوق دارندة علامت یا مطابق اصل آزادی بیان؟»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، د 9، ش 1، صص 47-65.
بختیاروند، مصطفی؛ اکرم آقا محمدی (1394). «تبلیغات تجاری مقایسه‌ای»، دانشنامة حقوق اقتصادی، د 22 ش 8، صص 97-123.
تصمیم کمیسیون علایم تجاری موضوع مادة 170 آیین‌نامة اجرایی قانون ثبت اختراعات، طرح‌های صنعتی، و علایم تجاری مصوب (1386). «اعتراض به آگهی تقاضای ثبت علامت تجاری شمارة 139350840001000441، مورخ 16/1/1393، منتشره در روزنامة رسمی شمارة 20163 مورخ 7/3/1393».
دادنامة شمارة 9409970221000953 صادره از شعبة دهم دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران.
دادنامة شمارة 9409970226300185 صادره از شعبة سوم دادگاه حقوقی مجتمع قضایی شهید بهشتی تهران.
دادنامة شمارة 9409972191800954 صادره از شعبة 1043 دادگاه کیفری دو تهران.
دادنامة شمارة 9609970226300021 صادره از شعبة سوم دادگاه عمومی حقوقی مجتمع قضایی شهید بهشتی تهران.
دادنامة شمارة 970992192000400 صادره از شعبة 1045 دادگاه کیفری دو شهرستان تهران.
دادنامة شمارة 9709972191801009 صادره از شعبة 1043 دادگاه کیفری دو تهران.
دادنامة شمارة 9709980226300196 صادره از شعبة سوم دادگاه حقوقی مجتمع قضایی شهید بهشتی تهران.
رهبری، ابراهیم؛ حسن لجم‌اورک (1389). «تحلیلی تطبیقی بر حمایت حقوقی از حق بر شهرت یا تصویر تجاری ورزشی»، مجلة حقوقی داگستری، س 83، ش 108، صص 71 ـ 93.
شمس، عبدالحمید (1382). حقوق مالکیت بر علایم تجاری و صنعتی، تهران، سمت.
شیخی، مریم (1394). اصول حقوق مالکیت فکری، میزان.
قرار نهایی به شمارة 9809972120200084 صادره از شعبة دوم دادیاری دادسرای ناحیة 19 سابق تهران (ناحیة 26 فعلی).
قرار نهایی به شمارة 9809972120200715 صادره از شعبة دوم دادیاری دادسرای ناحیة 19 سابق تهران (ناحیة 26 فعلی).
قرار نهایی شمارة 9709972120200175 صادره از شعبة دوم دادیاری دادسرای ناحیة 19 سابق تهران (ناحیة 26 فعلی).
قرار نهایی شمارة 9709972120401451 صادره از شعبة چهارم دادیاری دادسرای ناحیة 19 سابق تهران (ناحیة 26 فعلی).
References
Afrasiab, M. (2018). Industrial Property in the Iranian Legal System with Emphasis on Judicial Procedure, Tehran, Science and Knowledge Publishing. (in Persian)
Babaei, E. (2014). Trademark and Civil Enforcement Guarantee, Tehran, Majd Publications. (in Persian)
Bakhtiarvand, M. & Arabi Joshaghani, M. (2018). “Trademark Parody: Infringing Trademark Owner’s Rights or Consistent with Freedom of Speech Principle? (Comparative Study)”, Comparative Law Studies, Vol. 9, No 1. (in Persian)
BMW v Deenik (1999). available at: https://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp99/cp9907en.htm
British Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994).
Celine Sarl v Celine SA (2007). available at: http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/58556/Trademark/Can+Use+Of+A+Company+Name+Be+Trade+Mark+Infringement
Charles C. Goetsch (1980-1981). Parody as Free Speech-The Replacement of the Fair Use Doctrine by First Amendment Protection, 3 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 39.
Davis, J. (2012). Intellectual property law, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
Final desision No. 9709972120200175 issued by the second branch of the Judiciary of the former District 19 of Tehran (current District 26). (in Persian)
Final desision No. 9709972120401451 issued by the Fourth Judicial Branch of the former District 19 Court of Tehran (current District 26). (in Persian)
Final desision No. 9809972120200084 issued by the Second Judicial Branch of the former District 19 Court of Tehran (current District 26). (in Persian)
Final desision No. 9809972120200715 issued by the Second Judicial Branch of the former District 19 Court of Tehran (current District 26). (in Persian)
Fortres Grand v Warner Bros Entertainment (7th Circuit, 2014) available at: https://www.law360.com/cases/524aa5ebb7ff8937ed00a6dd/articles
German Trademark Act (GTA), 2018.
Gerolsteiner Brunnen v Putsch (2004) available at: Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, Vol. 121, Issue 19, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/2004rpc39
Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy (2005). available at: http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/33643/Trademark/Gillette+Company+v+LALaboratories
Global practice trademark defences (2015). When Trade Mark Use Is Not Infringement, provided University of Washington Law Library, 251 Managing Intell. Prop. 36.
Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Intel v CPM (2008). available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=684a1289-bb8e-475c-9a73-69a02a09eef2
Kalamadi, Sh. (2012). “Intellectual Property and the Business of Sports Management”, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 17.
Katharina, S. (2015). “Priority conflicts between trade names and trademarks in Austria: Defence of prior trade name in trademark cancellation actions”, Kluwer Trademark Blog, available at: http://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2016/07/15/priority-conflicts-between-tradenames-and-trademarksin-austria-defence-of-prior-trade-name-in-trademarkcancellation-actions/
Lisa P. Ramsey • Jens Schovsbo. (2015). Mechanisms for Limiting Trade Mark rights to Further Competition and Free Speech, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich.
Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks 1891.
Paris convention for the protection of industrial property1883.
Rahbari, E. & Lajm-Orak (2019). “Hassan, A Comparative Analysis of Legal Protection of the Right to a Sports Fame or Commercial Image”, Dagestry Law Journal, No. 108, pp. 71-93. (in Persian)
Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd (2004). available at: http://www.8newsquare.co.uk/cases/203/Reed+Executive+PLC+v+Reed+Business+Information+Ltd+and+Reed+Elsevier+%28UK%29+Ltd.+%5B2004%5D+RPC+767%2C+Ct+of+Appeal.html
Shams, A. (2003). Trademark and Industrial Property Rights, Tehran, Samat Publications. (in Persian)
Sheikhi, M. (2015). Principles of Intellectual Property Rights, Mizan Publishing. (in Persian)
The Community Trade Mark Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009.
The Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq.
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreements, (TRIPs Agreement) 1994.
Verdict No. 9409970221000953 issued by the Tenth Branch of the Court of Appeal of Tehran Province. (in Persian)
Verdict No. 9409970226300185 issued by the Third Branch of the Legal Court of Shahid Beheshti Judicial Complex in Tehran. (in Persian)
Verdict No. 9409972191800954 issued by Branch 1043 of the Second Criminal Court of Tehran. (in Persian)
Verdict No. 9609970226300021 issued by the Third Branch of the General Legal Court of the Shahid Beheshti Judicial Complex in Tehran. (in Persian)
Verdict No. 970992192000400 issued by Branch 1045 of the Criminal Court of Tehran. (in Persian)
Verdict No. 9709972191801009 issued by Branch 1043 of the Second Criminal Court of Tehran. (in Persian)
Verdict No. 9709980226300196 issued by the Third Branch of the Legal Court of Shahid Beheshti Judicial Complex in Tehran. (in Persian)
Volvo v Heritage (Leicester) Ltd (2000). cited in Intellectual Property Law Directions, By Helen Norman, Oxford university press.
