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 ...
For example, in McDonald's Corp. v. Druck and Gerner, D.D.S., P.C., [21] McDonald's sued McDental, a dental services provider operated by two dentists, for trademark infringement. McDonald's presented evidence that it owned trademark rights in a family of marks beginning with the prefix “Mc,” that there was widespread public familiarity ...
An intellectual property (IP) infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. There are several types of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, plant breeders rights [1] and trade secrets. Therefore, an intellectual property infringement may for instance be one ...
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 ...
Sale of trademark rights; Infringement Majority: Holmes: Trademark Act of 1905: A foreign company who sells its business to and American buyer (including its registered trademarks and goodwill) cannot subsequently enter the US market and use its old trademarks. American Steel Foundries v. Robertson: 262 U.S. 209: May 21, 1923: Procedural ...
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. arose out of a claim of trademark infringement. The plaintiff corporation, in Arizona, sued a Florida corporation who was using the plaintiff's registered trademark on its website. The website created by the defendant was for a small company that advertised its website construction services under the name ...
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]
Swift can claim trademark infringement by arguing that Trump's campaign gets an unauthorized benefit from reposting the bogus endorsement, Paul Michael Wilson, a trademark expert at Walker ...