Search for: "Smack Apparel Company"
Results 1 - 15
of 15
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2022, 1:01 pm
The post Apparel Company Hopes To Smack Seattle Kraken NHL Team In Federal Court appeared first on Above the Law. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 3:47 am
Smack Apparel Co., the Fifth Circuit issued a decision that can have significant implications for sellers of merchandise bearing well-known university or sports team color schemes. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 9:28 am
A federal court in 2006 endorsed the universities’ arguments that Smack’s products were purposefully similar enough to their own licensed products that they were likely to mislead consumers into believing that the company’s goods were produced by or associated with the universities’ own. . . . [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 3:01 am
Mansky (ban on political apparel at polls) [Ronald K.L. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 5:45 pm
10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® A federal court in 2006 endorsed the universities’ arguments that Smack’s products were purposefully similar enough to their own licensed products that they were likely to mislead consumers into believing that the company’s goods were produced by or associated with the universities’ own. . . . [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 5:38 pm
(via FDA Law Blog) It’s Dress-Down Day Everyday Condé Nast Portfolio noted that there are fewer distinctions between industries and power levels when it comes to apparel as “pretty much everyone looks more like they belong in tech support than in a partners’ meeting. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 9:01 am
Similar to the color schemes in the Fifth Circuit’s Smack Apparel decision, I think that there is an argument for very thin protection. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 7:38 am
Also, they didn’t encounter noncompeting goods cases very often because companies didn’t often offer multiple products. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 8:59 am
Smack Apparel: the D had justifications, they were just ignored. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 6:50 am
(Washington State Patent Law Blog) (Patently-O) BPAI uses dictionary published six years after filing date in rejecting claims: Ex Parte Davis (Gray on Claims) BPAI rejects claims, finding PHOSITA would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language: Ex parte Brune (Gray on Claims) ITC reverses Remand Initial Determination and finds no violation in investigation relating to coolants brought by INEOS against Sinochem (ITC 337 Law Blog) US Patents –… [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 8:49 am
Smack Apparel: P has sophisticated TM counsel and D doesn’t. [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 Supreme Court: Canwest v Horizon… [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 4:50 am
Other companies don’t. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 3:00 pm
France Paris Appeal Court: Che Guevara’s portrait: an icon, not a trade mark (Class 46) Germany German banks move towards deal on patent collateralisation (IAM) Munich Regional Court dismisses actor/comedian Michael ‘Bully’ Herbig’s trade mark and personality rights infringement case against Take Two Interactive over ‘Bully – Die Ehrenrunde’ computer game (Class 46) Polar bear Knut and the ‘big… [read post]
7 May 2012, 12:06 pm
Smack Apparel: merchandiser didn’t use registered marks or explicit names for teams, but instead used other references to the team. [read post]
