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 ...
For example, a news story about the New Kids on the Block can use the mark "New Kids on the Block" to identify the band. [20] Nominative fair use is often particularly relevant to fanfiction, since a fanfiction writer's use of trademarked names, settings, etc. to identify characters, story settings, etc. will generally meet the three ...
As a result, the less distinctive or original the trademark, the less able the trademark owner will be to control how it is used. For the potentially infringing use of a trademark or service mark, fair use by a non-owner of the mark falls under two categories:
If the trademark is the subject of a trademark registration, the complaint must provide the registration. Otherwise, the complaint must list: (a) the trademark; (b) the goods and/or services that are associated with the trademark; (c) the date on which the trademark was first used on such associated goods and/or services; and (d) the geographic ...
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 ...
Google on Thursday defeated a trademark lawsuit brought by a British short film company over YouTube's short video platform Shorts, with London's High Court ruling there was no risk of confusion ...
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]