Search for: "USA V. IN"
Results 2101 - 2120
of 11,074
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2024, 5:39 am
The district court properly exercised its discretion because evidence showed that Avco’s purchases of AVStar’s infringing products were motivated by reasons other than use of infringing trademarks, and Precision provided no evidence to support exemplary remedies (Avco Corp. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2024, 5:28 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2022, 2:25 am
The Federal Circuit held, however, that AAPA can be permissible in assessing whether the patent’s claims would have been obvious in an inter partes review proceeding as an admission in a patent’s specification, and remanded to the Board on that issue (Qualcomm Inc. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 5:42 am
The appellate court also affirmed the lower court’s grant of attorney fees to the defendant Running Buddy, agreeing with the lower court both that this case qualified as an exceptional case under the Lanham Act and that Running Buddy was entitled only to one-fourth of its fee request (Pocket Plus, LLC v. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 6:31 am
Circuit Judge James Dennis wrote a strongly worded dissenting opinion arguing that the majority does violence to the text of the Lanham Act by expanding the statute into noncommercial political speech protected by the First Amendment (Alliance for Good Government v. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 6:53 am
Furthermore, Wreal identified two consumers purpotedly confused by Amazon’s mark (Wreal, LLC v. [read post]
13 Aug 2024, 5:47 am
The court also rejected Defendant’s claim of trademark infringement because (1) Plaintiff only used the trademark for promoting NanoBone products, and (2) the sole trademark at issue was the word “NanoBone,” without any stylization, while Plaintiff’s trademarks were stylized variations (Artoss, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2021, 8:12 am
In so ruling, the Second Circuit reiterated that the plaintiff rather than the defendant in a trademark infringement claim bears the burden of proving the likelihood of consumer confusion, and that no particular order of analysis is required as long as the court considers all appropriate factors (Hamilton International Ltd. v. [read post]
26 May 2021, 7:33 am
The appellate court affirmed, however, the grant of summary judgment with respect to publications occurring prior to March 2015 (Martin v. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 12:57 am
The court also rejected Motus’ argument of an intentional tort of trademark infringement occurred within the state of Massachusetts, indicating that there was no evidence that CarData was even aware that Motus existed, let alone that Motus was based in Massachusetts, or that the alleged protected phrase was associated with Motus in dismissing the case (Motus, LLC v. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 1:32 am
The court also held that the Chinese company was not entitled to the benefit of the ACPA’s safe harbor provision because it could not have reasonably believed that its registration of PRU.COM was lawful (The Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. [read post]
30 Dec 2021, 8:07 am
Circuit Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion (Biogen International GmbH v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 7:08 am
It remanded back to the district court to consider the infringement claim under the proper standard (Underwood v. [read post]
14 Oct 2024, 4:29 am
The district court properly exercised its discretion because evidence showed that Avco’s purchases of AVStar’s infringing products were motivated by reasons other than use of infringing trademarks, and Precision provided no evidence to support exemplary remedies (Avco Corp. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2022, 6:31 am
In addition, even though the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of likelihood of confusion, it also concluded that the district court erred in adopting a rule excluding any consideration of a senior user’s post-infringement use of the mark and erred in certain aspects of its analysis, including how the court weighed strength of the mark and Bacardi’s intent (Lodestar Anstalt v. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 4:03 am
Thus, the Board’s decision that the challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable was affirmed (Ethicon LLC v. [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 7:36 am
The Ninth Circuit also, however, remanded the case for a further determination as to whether Fiat Chrysler had adequately disclosed its relationship with, and qualifications to use, Bluetooth technology, as it was required to do under limits previously placed on the first sale doctrine (Bluetooth SIG Inc. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2022, 1:49 am
The district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed (Sunless, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 11:46 pm
(Orin Kerr) On Monday, the Second Circuit handed down a very important decision on standing to challenge secret surveillance programs in Amnesty International USA v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 8:43 pm
§ 112(a), in PureCircle USA Inc. v. [read post]
