Search for: "Landmark Technology, LLC v. Genuine Parts Company"
Results 1 - 7
of 7
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2023, 7:42 am
The CDA was struck down in 1997 in a landmark case, Reno v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
ECJ clarifies rules relating to notice: K-Swiss Inc v OHIM (Class 46) EU Competitiveness Council resolution against counterfeiting and piracy (Class 46) EU states back three-point anti-piracy plan (Managing Intellectual Property) Fuel cells and wind power lead European patent filings for clean energy technology (Green Patent Blog) More non-minor geographical indicator (GI) amendments published (Class 46) No sign of any Community patent progress, despite Verheugen's optimism… [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 9:00 am
Software Pty Ltd v Bing Technologies Pty Limited (No 1) (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) Australian Bureau of Statistics going CC, under attribution-only licence (Creative Commons) (Michael Geist) Canada Depreciation a possible ground in opposition proceedings: Parmalat Canada Inc v Sysco Corporation (Canadian Trademark Blog) Trademarks Office considers changes to opposition practice (International Law Office) Parody defence not available according to BC… [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 1:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Obama Administration orders reconsideration/suspension of new rules (Hal Wegner) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patent Docs) (Patently-O) Manufacturing Alliance on Patent Policy: Apportionment of damages provision will have adverse effects (Patent Docs) (IAM) (Law360) (Inventive Step) ECJ: Promotional items do not qualify for… [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 4:56 am
Justice Thomas concurred in part. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 1:21 am
In this episode, you’ll learn about: The prior art, or evidence, of earlier technology that EFF was able to present to courts to prove that the so-called “podcasting patent” was invalid How the landmark Alice v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
Judge McMahon did, however, agree with the New York-based satellite radio company that Flo & Eddie could recover damages for copyright infringement only for the three years before it sued on Aug. 16, 2013, not six years as she had previously suggested. [read post]
