Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 1981 - 2000
of 5,964
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2019, 7:00 am
The parties’ claims about the rights to use the claimed marks were incompatible.Overhead argued that the court couldn’t determine whether OGD infringed Overhead’s registered marks because Overhead didn’t claim infringement based on its registrations. [read post]
21 Feb 2021, 2:50 pm
The Lanham Act does not expressly create liability for contributory trademark infringement, but the Supreme Court has concluded that “liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those who actually mislabel goods with the mark of another. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 1:00 am
San Diego truck accident lawyer Mark C. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 5:41 pm
Lots of good commentary here in the Top 10, and over on LXBN as well, where Zosha put together a nice piece on the decision. [read post]
17 Feb 2021, 1:34 am
The BOA considered that that the element ‘vision’ in the marks at issue and the element ‘hydro’ in the mark applied for had a weak distinctive character in relation to the goods in question, while the element ‘hylo’ of the earlier mark was distinctive in relation to those goods; then it held that the two signs as a whole were visually similar to an average degree, phonetically highly similar and that,… [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 4:53 pm
It can be argued that marks commonly used on the same type of goods are only entitled to a narrow scope of protection. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 1:36 pm
For instance, you must provide: (1) the registration number for the prior registration; and (2) a specific statement explaining that: (a) the mark in the new application is identical to the mark in the cancelled or expired registration; (b) the goods/services in the new application are identical to, or narrower than, the goods/services in the cancelled or expired registration; and (c) the owner of the prior registration is the same as the owner of the new… [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 12:50 pm
Franchise Law: a suggestions for a good read? [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 12:17 pm
(ii) Before the marks which fall under Section 9(1) (a) to (c) are given protection as a trade mark, the distinctiveness must of an undisturbed user of a very large/considerable number of years, with the emphasis being on discouragement on appropriation of such marks which fall under Section 9(1) (a) to (c). [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 4:13 am
TM law: in past, would’ve said TM was less fact specific and more formal, looking at similarity of signs, similarity of goods, and distinctiveness of the mark, and not much at what the consumer does in particular circumstances. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 9:21 am
From a trade mark perspective, brands should be aware that trade marks are registered for specific goods and services and expansion into new product categories might not be covered by the existing registrations. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 5:53 pm
In an older file, the U.S company followed the marking rules that allowed the company to say the goods were "Made in the USA" when the NAFTA rules of origin did not result in NAFTA originating treatment --- it was an honest mistake that resulted in negative consequences. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 1:47 pm
As a reminder, the following italicized questions come from Jane C. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 5:10 am
Good grief. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 4:11 am
It’s a silly Q.When you look at enforcement, a lot of times the P is objecting not entirely because of confusion but b/c of use on goods/in ways the P doesn’t like. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 5:05 am
(B) In respect of the utilisation of a sign identical with the trade mark for similar goods or services, or the utilisation of a sign similar to the trade mark for identical or similar goods or services, is the fact that the advertisement is marked as a 'sponsored link' and/or appears not in the list of hits but in a separate advertising block sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion? [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 7:13 am
Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd & Anor, heard 7 October 2015. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:28 am
Also one reason for the huge expense is b/c courts have set the bar so high. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 1:07 pm
Before using the multifactor confusion test, the threshold question was “whether the defendants are using the challenged mark in a way that identifies the source of their goods. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 11:18 pm
In a published decision earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed an earlier decision of Senior District Judge C. [read post]
