Search for: "Lanham v. United States"
Results 181 - 200
of 1,021
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2020, 8:08 am
Grp. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 8:08 am
Grp. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 10:38 am
On Tuesday, July 29, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “clarified certain aspects of [its] false advertising jurisprudence” and held that, where literal falsity and deliberate deception have been proved in a market with only two players, it is appropriate to use legal presumptions of consumer confusion and injury for the purposes of finding liability in a false advertising case brought under the Lanham Act.[1] 1. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 10:30 am
On Tuesday, July 29, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “clarified certain aspects of [its] false advertising jurisprudence” and held that, where literal falsity and deliberate deception have been proved in a market with only two players, it is appropriate to use legal presumptions of consumer confusion and injury for the purposes of finding liability in a false advertising case brought under the Lanham Act.[1] 1. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 12:18 pm
In addition, Heartland claims ownership of the following pending applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 12:18 pm
In addition, Heartland claims ownership of the following pending applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 2:00 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 3:43 pm
Trademark InfringementRemedy of an Accounting and Disgorgement of ProfitsRemedies of Accounting, Constructive Trust, and RestitutionInjunctive ReliefJury TrialSeventh Amendment Right to Trial by JuryCommon LawEquityMonetary Damages Available to a Lanham Act Trademark PlaintiffFair Use Defense to InfringementLikelihood of ConfusionHard Candy filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Anastasia, claiming trademark… [read post]
1 May 2020, 11:17 am
On April 23, 2020 the United States Supreme Court made clear where it stands. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 10:58 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
29 Jun 2021, 7:15 am
Lanham Act. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 4:15 am
" Pro-Football, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:36 pm
A total of twelve record companies ("Companies") in the United States brought copyright infringement, violations of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and tortious interference claims against Sakfield Holding Company ("Sakfield") in federal district court of the District of Columbia on July 3, 2003. [read post]
11 May 2015, 11:30 am
Id.The United States Supreme Court found such an intent in the Lanham Act inSteele v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 11:57 am
" It has more than 260 stores across the United States. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 5:50 am
FMC Corp. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2021, 3:19 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 9:11 am
Join us as our expert faculty provides a concise update and review of the latest cases from the United States Supreme Court, the various US Courts of Appeals (especially the Federal Circuit), and the U.S. [read post]
24 Mar 2021, 4:07 am
Qurate Retail, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 12:03 pm
(Quechan Tribe; Attorney Termination; Lanham Act) Roemen, et al. v. [read post]
