Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Pages in category "United States trademark case law" ... List of United States Supreme Court trademark case law; 0–9. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. A.
In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services. [ 1 ] : 485–486 If the respective marks and products or services are entirely dissimilar, trademark infringement may still be established if the registered mark is well known pursuant to the Paris Convention .
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. L & L Wings, Inc. 962 F.2d 316 (4th Cir. 1992) Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World 537 F.2d 4 (2nd Cir. 1976) (established the spectrum of trademark distinctiveness in the United States, breaking trademarks into classes which are accorded differing degrees of protection)
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 Administrative Trademark Judges of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) are appointed by the United States Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. Each appeal and adversarial proceeding is heard and decided by at least three judges of the TTAB.
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.
Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657 (1838), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court asserted its original jurisdiction over a suit in equity by one state against another over their shared border. The case involved a boundary dispute between Massachusetts and Rhode Island dating back to colonial times.