Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tiffany claimed the contributory trademark infringement of eBay, which was a judicially constructed doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. and found the liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those who actually mislabel goods with the mark of another. As established in ...
A daily look at legal news and the business of law: eBay Didn't Infringe Tiffany's Trademark, Court Decides In a case that may echo into the Google/YouTube v. Viacom copyright showdown, the 2nd U ...
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 ...
An intellectual property (IP) infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. There are several types of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, plant breeders rights [1] and trade secrets. Therefore, an intellectual property infringement may for instance be one ...
Google on Thursday defeated a trademark lawsuit brought by a British short film company over YouTube's short video platform Shorts, with London's High Court ruling there was no risk of confusion ...
Somerton — whose subscriber count dropped to 255,000 on YouTube — went silent online, hid all his videos from public view and deactivated his presence on Patreon, a platform where supporters ...
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
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]