Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Trademark Act of 1905 A Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is not a final judgment reviewable by the Supreme Court. A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel: 260 U.S. 689: Jan. 29, 1923: Substantive Sale of trademark rights; Infringement Majority: Holmes: Trademark Act of 1905
Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the trademarkability of a generic terms appended with a top-level domain (TLD) specifier (in this case "Booking.com"). The Court ruled that such names can be trademarked unless the existing combination of term and TLD is ...
Case Docket no. Question(s) presented Certiorari granted Oral argument Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra: 23-715: Whether the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not ...
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a $43 million dispute between two real estate developers - one in Virginia and one in Georgia - over the rights to the "Dewberry" name in a case ...
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.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it would rule against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.” The dispute is over the government's decision to deny a ...
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.
The Court rejected the appellate court's "clear and convincing evidence" standard that successful patent litigants would have to establish in order to receive fees. Instead, the Court held that a simple discretionary inquiry would serve to determine whether granting attorney fees is appropriate. 35 U.S.C. 285