Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines shortened as IPOPHL, is a government agency attached to the Department of Trade and Industry in charge of registration of intellectual property and conflict resolution of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.
The Supreme Court first held that liability for trademark infringement could extend beyond direct infringers in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. [28] The Supreme Court articulated the following standard for contributory infringement: "If a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or ...
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 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The opposition proceeding will bring the trademark application that Woods filed for his new logo to a halt, Josh Gerben, a trademark attorney, told CNBC. It is unlikely to affect future production ...
This law was replaced on March 6, 1903 by Act No. 666 or the Trademark and Trade Name Law of the Philippine Islands, which abandoned prior registration in favor of actual use of the mark as the basis for trademark rights. The Philippines, being then a territory of the United States, incorporated into Act 666 principles upon which the U.S ...
The ad was eventually taken down and Subway Philippines released a statement, which was further criticized online as a non-apology apology as the company did not acknowledge the issue and merely "reiterated the B.M.T message". The statement was also eventually taken down and followed up with a new statement apologizing for the commercial, with ...
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. 539 U.S. 23 (2003) (it is a misuse of trademark law to try to use the doctrine of reverse passing off to assert protection over a formerly copyrighted work which has passed into public domain)