Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The court found that the overall appearance of Compco's fixture was "the same, to the eye of the ordinary observer, as the overall appearance" of Day-Brite's fixture, which embodied the design of the invalidated design patent; that the appearance of Day-Brite's design had "the capacity to identify [Day-Brite] in the trade, and does in fact so ...
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act, provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market.
In Mercury Records Productions, Inc. v. Economic Consultants, Inc., [33] the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that INS states the applicable law for Wisconsin: "The unfair competition-misappropriation theory applied in INS. . . comports with the theory" of the Wisconsin courts and "is consistent with the public policy of the state of Wisconsin ...
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), [1] was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers. The Court declared that, in certain limited circumstances indicating that the "sale" or "break-up" of the company is inevitable, the fiduciary obligation of the directors of a target corporation are narrowed significantly, the singular ...
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. [1]
Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] EWCA Civ 4 is an English Court of Appeal decision which established fundamental breach as a major English contract law doctrine. Denning LJ MR gave the leading judgment replacing the Rule of Strict Construction, which require a literal approach to the construction of contract terms.
Case held that the FTC is entitled to bring enforcement action against businesses that act unfairly, as where supermarket trading stamps company injured consumers by prohibiting them from exchanging trading stamps. The FTC could prevent the restrictive practice as unfair, even though there was no specific antitrust violation.
The U.S. lost this case for two reasons: process versus product and extraterritoriality. [4] The Panel Report indicated that the US could not distinguish between like products--in this case tuna--through procedure and process methods--in this case the use of purse-seine netting methods that drowned dolphins.