Search for: "Gordon v. USA"
Results 41 - 60
of 171
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2019, 12:32 am
In affirming a district court’s dismissal because use of the marks constituted nominative fair use, the appeals court concluded that Applied’s service was not readily identifiable without use of the trademarks, the seminar creators used only so much of the trademarks as was reasonably necessary, and use of the trademarks did not suggest sponsorship or endorsement (Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 3:34 am
The claims had been brought in good faith and the litigation was still at a very early stage (SnugglyCat, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2020, 8:12 am
The district court erred when it adopted factual findings made by a magistrate judge while deciding a motion for summary judgment because the magistrate judge had weighed the evidence (Heron Development Corp. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 1:37 am
In affirming the federal district court’s dismissal of Neutron Depot’s suit alleging infringement of the INSURANCE DEPOT mark against Bankrate, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Neutron Depot did not own the mark outright at any point when the infringement took place (Neutron Depot, LLC v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 5:59 am
He also wrote a short concurring and dissenting opinion in a matter involving the USA Pact Act, Gordon v. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 6:00 am
T Mobile USA, Inc. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 11:15 pm
SAS Institute Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 5:16 am
While the plaintiff’s filing of an application to register the SULKA mark in the United States was “certainly relevant” to intent to market products in the United States, it had little bearing on his ability to expand his business to the United States (Selah v. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 7:12 am
Not only did appellee’s arguments have virtually no likelihood of success because the seller had waived them, but its actions in bringing the appeal were found to be a tactic to draw out the proceedings as long as possible while knowing that it had no viable substantive defense (Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 12:50 am
The district court was instructed on remand to determine whether the retailer consented to the publication (Sleepy’s LLC v. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 1:04 am
The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s determination that Laerdal failed to plead its trade dress claims with adequate detail, vacated the ITC’s decision that no relief was warranted, and remanded to the ITC to determine the appropriate remedy after consideration of public interest concerns (Laerdal Medical Corp. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:31 am
Fields Famous Brands, LLC v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 1:00 am
The court remanded trademark infringement and other claims brought by dietary supplement seller Charles Curry to the federal district court in Chicago for further proceedings (Curry v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 4:44 am
The appellate court reversed a district court’s denial of the German company’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded with instructions that the case be dismissed (C5 Medical Werks, LLC v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 3:59 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a summary order affirming the district court’s judgment (Oneida Indian Nation v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that all of Engage’s asserted marks were merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning, including sole only mark the district court deemed valid mark but not infringed by Intellisphere (Engage Healthcare Communications, LLC v. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 10:22 am
USA Today's series on prosecutorial misconduct is here. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 2:39 am
More from our authors: Mediation: Creating Value in International Intellectual Property Disputes by Théophile Margellos, Sophia Bonne, Gordon Humphreys, Sven Stürmann € Design Rights, Functionality and Scope of Protection by Chris Carani€ 199 [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 3:51 am
On this record, triable issues of fact exist as to whether, but for defendant’s failure to inform plaintiff’s principal that it could be locked into the sale agreement in perpetuity if it did not obtain municipal approval for redevelopment, it would not have entered into the contract as written and would have avoided litigation with the buyer who sued for specific performance (see Leggiadro, Ltd. v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 151 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2017]; Escape… [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 11:57 pm
., SpA v. [read post]
