Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Trademark Act of 1905 A Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is not a final judgment reviewable by the Supreme Court. A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel: 260 U.S. 689: Jan. 29, 1923: Substantive Sale of trademark rights; Infringement Majority: Holmes: Trademark Act of 1905
(2) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. January 17, 2025: Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas: 24-413
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the field of trademark law. The case determined that a functional design could not be eligible for trademark protection, and it established a presumption that a patented design is inherently functional.
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act, provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it would rule against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.” The dispute is over the government's decision to deny a ...
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 ...
WASHINGTON — No case is too small for the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the high court heard arguments in a dispute over whether a California lawyer can trademark the phrase “Trump too small ...
The ACLU argued that the Supreme Court had already ruled there was a higher level of scrutiny when the mere display of a potentially offensive word can be regulated from the 1971 case Cohen v. California . [ 5 ]