Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This law was replaced on March 6, 1903 by Act No. 666 or the Trademark and Trade Name Law of the Philippine Islands, which abandoned prior registration in favor of actual use of the mark as the basis for trademark rights. The Philippines, being then a territory of the United States, incorporated into Act 666 principles upon which the U.S ...
The Supreme Court first held that liability for trademark infringement could extend beyond direct infringers in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. [28] The Supreme Court articulated the following standard for contributory infringement: "If a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or ...
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines shortened as IPOPHL, is a government agency attached to the Department of Trade and Industry in charge of registration of intellectual property and conflict resolution of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.
In trademark law, confusing similarity is a test used during the examination process to determine whether a trademark conflicts with another, earlier mark, and also in trademark infringement proceedings to determine whether the use of a mark infringes a registered trademark.
In this case, Mobil sued Pegasus Petroleum, an oil trading company founded in 1981, on the basis of a trademark infringement concerning the "Pegasus" name. Mobil is the holder of a registered trademark in both the flying horse symbol representing the Greek mythological figure of Pegasus , and the name "Pegasus" itself. [ 2 ]
The case involved logos for the two schools that both depict a block-style, blue-and-white D. While Drake does not hold a registered trademark for the logo, unlike separate logos it uses for ...
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 ...
The Court would reject, though, charging Lucky Brand for violations of the 2005 case as it did not involve the use of Marcel's "Get Lucky", but rather Lucky Brand's own "Lucky" marks. The case would be remanded. Lucky Brand would argue that due to Marcel's releasing its claims due to the prior settlement agreement the case should be dismissed.