Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Trademark Act of 1905: In calculating damages, the rightful trademark owner only bears the burden of proving the amount of infringer's sales bearing the trademark—the infringer bears the burden of decreasing the damage calculation by showing what portion of profits are attributable to factors other than use of the infringing mark.
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act.In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.
In order to successfully assert a fair-use defense to a trademark infringement claim, the defendant must prove the three elements of the fair-use doctrine: (1) that the term was used in a way other than as a mark; (2) that the term was used to describe the goods or services offered or their geographic origin; and (3) that the use had been ...
The Lanham Act prohibits "the deceptive and misleading use of marks" to protect business owners "against unfair competition." [4] The Act defines trademarks as "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof" used by any person "to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the ...
Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114). [1] [2]
The new case deals with another measure calling for a trademark request to be refused if it involves a name, portrait or signature “identifying a particular living individual” unless the ...
To prevail on a direct trademark infringement under the Lanham Act a plaintiff must prove: That they own the valid mark; Defendant used the mark in commerce and without the Plaintiff's authorization; Defendant used the mark (or an imitation of it) "in connection with the sale, distribution, or advertising" of goods or services; and
These provisions forbid the importation of goods that infringe registered trademarks, and restrict, through the use of injunctions and damages, the use of false descriptions and trademark dilution. § 43(a) ( 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ) is the "likelihood of confusion" standard for infringement of an unregistered trademark or trade dress, and courts ...