Search for: "Goodwill v. Goodwill"
Results 2121 - 2133
of 2,133
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2006, 2:43 am
This decision is not yet on BAILII and picked up first by the Lawtel subscription service: it's Microsoft Corporation v McDonald, a Chancery Division decision of Mr Justice Lewison yesterday.This was an application by Microsoft, in its capacity of lord and master of the MSN Hotmail service, for summary judgment on its claim that McDonald had transmitted, or instigated the transmission of, unsolicited communications by email to individual subscribers for the purpose of direct marketing… [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 12:13 pm
Gaskill v. [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 6:47 am
V's Secret was good because it said "If you believe in dilution, show it to me - prove there's a harm that needs to be alleviated. [read post]
29 Nov 2006, 11:47 am
* Simmons v. [read post]
22 Nov 2006, 8:46 am
Yonkers, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2006, 4:54 am
What about damage to the company's goodwill? [read post]
20 Oct 2006, 1:33 pm
Pat’s King of Steaks argues that these references were made in an effort to profit from the goodwill of the trademark Pat’s King of Steaks. [read post]
13 Oct 2006, 7:15 am
Swatch S.A. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2006, 5:36 am
The Court of Appeal held in Strategix, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2006, 3:34 am
Star attraction, so far as the IPKat's concerned, is yet another sharply focused piece by Addleshaw Goddard's triplets Brian Whitehead, Stuart Jackson and Richard Kempner on Mr Justice Kitchin's recent ruling on inventive step in Ivax v Chugai. [read post]
5 Sep 2006, 5:18 am
" Tea Board of India v. [read post]
9 Aug 2006, 10:38 am
., but here are two interesting appeals court decisions from the last few weeks.11th Circuit "Fair Use" Decision -- In International Stamp Art, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2006, 9:25 am
The 10th Circuit recently issued an opinion in an interesting case involving issues of (1) unauthorized sales of genuine products and (2) use of the trademark holder's mark on the Internet in various ways.In Australian Gold, Inc. v. [read post]
