Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act, provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market.
In 1995, the United States Supreme Court further acknowledged that a colour could be used as a trademark in the case of Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc.. [6] The trademark owner must show that the trademark colour has acquired substantial distinctiveness, and the colour indicates source of the goods to which it is applied.
List of 15 largest global commodities trading companies. This section does not cite any sources.
Global Trading Systems, which uses the trade name GTS, is an American proprietary trading and market making firm headquartered in New York. The firm accounts for 3 to 5 percent of the daily turnover of US equities and has handled over 250 IPO listings since 2013.
A trading company is a business that works with different kinds of products sold for consumer, business purposes.In contemporary times, trading companies buy a specialized range of products, shopkeeper them, and coordinate delivery of products to customers.
Crimplene is a texturised continuous fibre launched in 1959, produced by modifying Terylene. [1] The patent was taken out by Mario Nava of Chesline and Crepes Ltd of Macclesfield, and sold to ICI Fibres. [2]
Knight Capital Group operated in four segments: equities, fixed income, currencies and commodities, and corporate. Operating business subsidiaries included Knight Capital Americas, L.P., Knight Execution & Clearing Services LLC, Knight Capital Europe Limited and Hotspot FX Holdings, Inc. [10] Knight Capital Group discontinued operations of its asset management segment in 2009 when its ...
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the field of trademark law. The case determined that a functional design could not be eligible for trademark protection, and it established a presumption that a patented design is inherently functional.