Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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
Google v. American Blind was not the first case to address trademark infringement in the context of online keyword advertising (see Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., [2] 1-800-CONTACTS v. WhenU Inc. [3]). Nevertheless, it generated interest in the trademark-law community because it came on the heels of Playboy v.
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco).
Penn State has won a closely watched trademark fight over an online retailer's use of its vintage sports logos and images. A Pennsylvania jury awarded Penn State $28,000 in damages on Wednesday ...
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 [1] This decision was later superseded by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 ...
Questions were also raised about the validity of lay juries in the U.S. patent system, because the qualifications of the jury members were deemed inadequate for a complex patent case. [33] Jury foreman Velvin Hogan generated additional controversy when he stated to interviewers that he was an electrical engineer and patent holder, and used his ...
Full case name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney : Argued: May 7, 2001: Decided: August 23, 2001: Citation: 113 F. Supp. 2d 915, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13421, 263 F.3d 359: Holding; Using a trademarked name in the URL for an unaffiliated website, even for parody purposes, is a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer ...