Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tiffany claimed the contributory trademark infringement of eBay, which was a judicially constructed doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. and found the liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those who actually mislabel goods with the mark of another. As established in ...
A daily look at legal news and the business of law: eBay Didn't Infringe Tiffany's Trademark, Court Decides In a case that may echo into the Google/YouTube v. Viacom copyright showdown, the 2nd U ...
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. arose out of a claim of trademark infringement. The plaintiff corporation, in Arizona, sued a Florida corporation who was using the plaintiff's registered trademark on its website. The website created by the defendant was for a small company that advertised its website construction services under the name ...
In order to successfully assert a fair-use defense to a trademark infringement claim, the defendant must prove the three elements of the fair-use doctrine: (1) that the term was used in a way other than as a mark; (2) that the term was used to describe the goods or services offered or their geographic origin; and (3) that the use had been ...
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 ...
Swift can claim trademark infringement by arguing that Trump's campaign gets an unauthorized benefit from reposting the bogus endorsement, Paul Michael Wilson, a trademark expert at Walker ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]