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 ...
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]
Sale of trademark rights; Infringement Majority: Holmes: Trademark Act of 1905: A foreign company who sells its business to and American buyer (including its registered trademarks and goodwill) cannot subsequently enter the US market and use its old trademarks. American Steel Foundries v. Robertson: 262 U.S. 209: May 21, 1923: Procedural ...
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 ...
If the trademark is the subject of a trademark registration, the complaint must provide the registration. Otherwise, the complaint must list: (a) the trademark; (b) the goods and/or services that are associated with the trademark; (c) the date on which the trademark was first used on such associated goods and/or services; and (d) the geographic ...
The second way that an OSP can be put on notice that its system contains infringing material, for purposes of section 512(d), is referred to the "red flag" test. [12] The "red flag" test stems from the language in the statute that requires that an OSP not be "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. arose out of a claim of trademark infringement. The plaintiff corporation, in Arizona, sued a Florida corporation who was using the plaintiff's registered trademark on its website. The website created by the defendant was for a small company that advertised its website construction services under the name ...