enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. List of United States Supreme Court trademark case law

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    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.

  3. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romag_Fasteners,_Inc._v...

    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.

  4. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrafFix_Devices,_Inc._v...

    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.

  5. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inwood_Laboratories,_Inc...

    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]

  6. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moseley_v._V_Secret...

    The circuit court in its opinion considered and rejected a Fourth Circuit case which held that proof of actual economic damages was necessary for a trademark dilution claim to prevail under the FTDA. [7] Because of the difference between the circuits on this issue, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the legal conflict.

  7. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Pesos,_Inc._v._Taco...

    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 ...

  8. Trademark infringement - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

    An accounting of profits is proper in a trademark infringement case only where the defendant engages in willful infringement, meaning that the defendant attempted to exploit the value of an established name of another. [45] Alternatively, a plaintiff may recover damages incurred if they show a reasonable forecast of lost profits.

  9. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_(NJ)_Inc._v._eBay_Inc.

    Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2010), [1] was a landmark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit first addressed contributory trademark infringement in the context of online marketplaces.