- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
High Court Of Justice Favors Google In Trademark Lawsuit By Shorts International
High Court Of Justice Favors Google In Trademark Lawsuit By Shorts International
The tech giant had launched minute-long videos in late 2020 after struggling to compete with TikTok
The High Court of Justice in London has ruled in favor of Google in a trademark lawsuit filed by British company Shorts International on the word 'shorts' used in video-platform, YouTube Shorts.
The court found no confusion for consumers between YouTube Shorts and the short film TV channel and there was no damage to Shorts International's trademark.
In 2023, Shorts International, which runs a television channel devoted to short films, sued the tech giant, accusing it of infringing its ‘shorts’ trademark.
Google-owned YouTube had launched ‘Shorts’, featuring minute-long videos in late 2020, as it struggled to compete with TikTok.
Google's lawyer Lindsay Lane had argued that it was "abundantly clear" that the Shorts platform came from YouTube, not Shorts International.
While dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Michael Tappin ruled that none of Google's uses of the word ‘shorts’ feigned confusion on the origin of the platform. Therefore, “it will not cause damage to the distinctive character or repute of Shorts International's trademarks.”