Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Trademark Act of 1905 imports the rules of practice and procedure that govern appeals of patent applications, and so authorizes a trademark owner to bring a suit in equity following an unsuccessful trademark cancellation appeal; and under the Trademark Act, both parties to a trademark cancellation interference have the right to appeal a ...
Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects ... Pages in category "United States trademark case law" ... List of United States Supreme Court trademark case ...
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) Derry v. Peek (1888) LR 14 App Cas 337
Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects ... List of United States Supreme Court patent case law; ... List of United States Supreme Court trademark case law
Before being ruled unconstitutional, they were the subjects of other Supreme Court cases: Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Clark, Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. D. Trainer & Sons, and McLean v. Fleming. The Trade Mark Act of 1881, instead, justified its authority under the Commerce Clause.
A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. [1] Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark.
Schillinger v. United States: 155 U.S. 163: 1894: Patent infringement claim against the United States cannot be asserted. Black Diamond Coal Mining Company v. Excelsior Coal Company: 156 U.S. 611: 1895: Consolidated Electric Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co: 159 U.S. 465: 1895: Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart: 158 U.S. 68: 1895: Boyden ...
Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case involving parody and trademark law.The case deals with a dog toy shaped similar to a Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle and label, but with parody elements, which Jack Daniel's asserts violates their trademark.