Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Lanham Act prohibits "the deceptive and misleading use of marks" to protect business owners "against unfair competition." 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 goods ...
The Supreme Court of the United States is the country's highest federal court. The Court has ultimate—and largely discretionary — appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of U.S. federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. The nine Supreme Court justices base their ...
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to seek monetary relief for restitution or disgorgement from those that it found in violation of trade practices. The Court ruled unanimously that the FTC had misused its ...
Here is a fact check of some other false claims Trump made Thursday. ... which is accurate (it was about 11.2 million more votes) - but then added, “And that’s not including other votes, that ...
Trademark Dilution Revision Act. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, a claim of trademark dilution requires proof of actual dilution, not merely a likelihood of dilution. [1] This decision was later superseded by ...
For comparison's sake, prices rose just under 7.8% during the four years of Trump's presidency. The year-over-year inflation rate when Biden took office was 1.4%, not 9%. Though prices did reach 9 ...
As the Supreme Court explained in an 1847 decision, the police power “is not susceptible of an exact limitation.”. As “new and vicious indulgences” emerged, they required “restraints ...
FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another ...