Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114). [1] [2]
The Trademark Act of 1905 imports the rules of practice and procedure that govern appeals of patent applications, and so authorizes a trademark owner to bring a suit in equity following an unsuccessful trademark cancellation appeal; and under the Trademark Act, both parties to a trademark cancellation interference have the right to appeal a ...
A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. [1] Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark.
Schillinger v. United States: 155 U.S. 163: 1894: Patent infringement claim against the United States cannot be asserted. Black Diamond Coal Mining Company v. Excelsior Coal Company: 156 U.S. 611: 1895: Consolidated Electric Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co: 159 U.S. 465: 1895: Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart: 158 U.S. 68: 1895: Boyden ...
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.
WASHINGTON — No case is too small for the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the high court heard arguments in a dispute over whether a California lawyer can trademark the phrase “Trump too small ...
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 ...
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during oral arguments, the right to sell a shirt is different from the right to be the only one who can sell that shirt.