Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Marks that cannot themselves be registered as trademarks but have achieved secondary meaning can still be protected from unfair competition; under the 1881 Act, circuit courts do not have jurisdiction over a dispute by two parties of the same state not involving a registrable trademark Clinton E. Worden & Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co.
The authority for this type of registration is set forth in the Lanham Act, which permits concurrent use registration where the concurrent use applicant made a good-faith adoption of the mark prior to the registrant filing an application for registration. Such registrations are most commonly achieved by agreement of the parties involved ...
Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286, is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with 15 U.S.C. § 1052, a provision of the Lanham Act regarding trademarks using the name of living individuals without their consent. The court decided that the provision does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. [1] [2]
A California man’s chances of trademarking “Trump too small” may be gone. The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared inclined to side with the Biden Justice Department in rejecting the ...
In the United States, an Office action is a document written by an examiner in a patent or trademark examination procedure and mailed to an applicant [1] for a patent or trademark. The expression is used in many jurisdictions. Formally, the "O" is supposed to be capitalized, since it refers to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. [2]
A suggestive trademark tends to indicate the nature, quality, or a characteristic of the products or services in relation to which it is used, but does not describe this characteristic, and requires imagination on the part of the consumer to identify the characteristic. Suggestive marks invoke the consumer's perceptive imagination.
Trademark law protects a company's goodwill, and helps consumers easily identify the source of the things they purchase. In principle, trademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, reduces the customer's costs of shopping and making purchasing decisions, for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this
The nominative use doctrine was first enunciated in 1992 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc. [4] In New Kids on the Block, the court had examined a "New Kids on the Block survey" performed by the defendant, and found that there was no way to ask people their opinion of the band without using its name.