Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An accounting of profits is proper in a trademark infringement case only where the defendant engages in willful infringement, meaning that the defendant attempted to exploit the value of an established name of another. [45] Alternatively, a plaintiff may recover damages incurred if they show a reasonable forecast of lost profits.
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the trademark rights of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to regulate the use of the word "Olympic" under the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
A trademark owner who confines his trademark usage to a certain territory cannot enjoin use of that trademark by someone else who in good faith established extensive and continuous trade in another territory where the plaintiff trademark owner's product is unknown. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. 248 U.S. 90: Dec. 9, 1918: Substantive
Arsenal Football Club vs. Matthew Reed is a trademark infringement case in English law concerning the sale of unlicensed merchandise bearing the Arsenal Football Club trademarks. The case revolved around Matthew Reed, who for approximately 30 years sold souvenirs near Arsenal's Highbury Stadium , some of which bore the club's registered trademarks.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. [7] The court defined its task as "whether the lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes appearing on the surface of [Varsity Brands'] cheerleading uniforms are eligible for copyright restriction as separable features of the design of those cheerleading ...
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act.In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.
The Lanham Act prohibits "the deceptive and misleading use of marks" to protect business owners "against unfair competition." [4] The Act defines trademarks as "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof" used by any person "to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the ...
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I. Inc. 543 U.S. 111, 124 (2004) ("a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case, ... while the defendant has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion in raising the affirmative defense ...