Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned to allow state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v.
Sale of trademark rights; Infringement Majority: Holmes: Trademark Act of 1905: A foreign company who sells its business to and American buyer (including its registered trademarks and goodwill) cannot subsequently enter the US market and use its old trademarks. American Steel Foundries v. Robertson: 262 U.S. 209: May 21, 1923: Procedural ...
Star Athletica wanted to press a counter-claim after the Supreme Court's ruling that designs on the uniforms could be copyrightable with an argument that the particular Varsity designs in the case should not be copyrightable due to their simplicity. The settlement precluded that argument and closed the case with prejudice. [99] [100]
An accounting of profits is proper in a trademark infringement case only where the defendant engages in willful infringement, meaning that the defendant attempted to exploit the value of an established name of another. [45] Alternatively, a plaintiff may recover damages incurred if they show a reasonable forecast of lost profits.
The first action in the dispute occurred in 1992, when Suzan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, with six other prominent Native Americans represented by the Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis, petitioned the USPTO to cancel the trademark registrations owned by the Redskins' corporate entity of Pro-Football, Inc. (now known as Pro-Football, LLC).
Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case involving parody and trademark law.The case deals with a dog toy shaped similar to a Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle and label, but with parody elements, which Jack Daniel's asserts violates their trademark.
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I. Inc. 543 U.S. 111, 124 (2004) ("a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case, ... while the defendant has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion in raising the affirmative defense ...
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. filed suit against Welles, claiming trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Welles responded that she could not legitimately describe herself without using the magazine's trademarked terms, and in doing so she was engaged in nominative use (a component of the fair use defense in trademark law) of the trademarks ...