Search for: "Famous Foods, Inc. v. General Foods Corporation"
Results 21 - 40
of 48
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2018, 6:40 am
E.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 10:48 am
“Both ads will generate goodwill for the advertiser. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 1:28 pm
“Both ads will generate goodwill for the advertiser. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 2:00 pm
A Musical Experience + Helmut Lang + Henna by Senya + House of Leifer + J&J Snack Foods Corporation + J and V Audio Inc. + JAKKS Pacific, Inc. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 8:52 am
Pelucchi, V. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 6:37 am
(Editor’s Note: This post comes to us from Katrina Dewey, CEO & Publisher, Lawdragon, Inc.) [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 9:15 am
Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 10:27 am
Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:50 pm
Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
While some companies have made the argument successfully that they had no knowledge of a partner’s intentions to transport their goods to New York (Ortiz v Food Mach. of Am., Inc.) (2014 NY Slip Op. 31868[U] [Bronx Ct. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts… [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts… [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 1:12 pm
This wasn’t inconsistent with Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 2:59 pm
") Welcome to Web 2.0, corporate IP police! [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 6:23 pm
It generated more than $16 billion (!!) [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 7:11 am
United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001), and corporations generally have free speech rights. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 3:59 am
A one-line conclusion is all we end up with in the Louboutin red sole sagaChristian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV Case C‑163/16, CJEU (June 2018)This case looking at the nature of Louboutin’s attempt to protect the red sole of its famous footwear has been much discussed and debated amongst trade mark lawyers in its nine-year history. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 8:46 am
” The California Supreme Court’s Greenman opinion wasn’t the first to adopt strict liability — the original “strict liability” laws date back to the 1200s, holding the purveyors of tainted food liable for illnesses — but it was the most prominent formulation of the general tort of strict liability, which quickly became the law across the country. [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 3:50 am
Leigh Vickery, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Level Legal, as well as CEO and founder of Queso Mama, says that we need to look at the corporate and legal industry world differently. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 11:32 am
Lyle & Scott v American Eagle Outfitters, Inc [2021] EWHC 90 (January 2021) This case is a breach of contract and passing off claim concerning the two eagle logos depicted below. [read post]
