Search for: "USA v. Alexander"
Results 21 - 40
of 128
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jul 2024, 5:28 am
Ltd. 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]
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]
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]
21 Mar 2025, 8:00 am
Further, the appeals court said that the district court properly treated the likelihood of confusion question as a matter of law, despite some earlier circuit rulings to the contrary (RiseandShine Corp. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 6:14 am
Any error in the Board’s claim construction was harmless and substantial evidence, including the claim language and expert testimony, supported the Board’s findings of motivation to combine (Bot M8 LLC v. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 4:39 am
In Alexander v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 8:19 am
Justice Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, expressed strong disagreement with the majority’s interpretation of Section 315(b) as “another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy” (Thryv, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2024, 8:00 am
The attorney fees award was vacated because the district court abused its discretion, lacking sufficient evidence of Axis’s improper litigation conduct (Appliance Liquidation Outlet, L.L.C. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2025, 6:19 am
An Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a preliminary injunction barring the use of the “KRANK3D” mark, in a case brought by a company that holds the registered trademark “KRANK’D” (Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 7:48 am
Furthermore, the appellate court reiterated that financial difficulties and litigation do not excuse nonuse or toll the running of the nonuse period (To-Ricos, Ltd. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2024, 7:24 am
” Although the likelihood of confusion was ordinarily a fact-intensive issue, this was one of the rare instances in which the mark owner’s case was so weak that summary judgment was appropriate, in the Ninth Circuit’s view (Lerner & Rowe PC v. [read post]
18 Mar 2025, 5:30 am
In so holding, the appellate court held that the district court did not err in its conclusion that the eight “digits of confusion” did not support a finding that there existed a substantial likelihood of confusion between the senior trademark of Rampart Resources and the mark of Rampart/Wurth (Rampart Resources, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 7:44 am
A dissenting judge argued that one of the patents contained plausibly valid claims that recited technical improvements to a graphical user interface (International Business Machines Corp. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2025, 4:25 am
Ghost Adventures, LLC’s (“USGA”) request for preliminary injunctive relief against Miss Lizzie’s Coffee, agreeing with the district court that the latter actions are not likely to cause consumer confusion (US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 9:11 am
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 4:07 am
Immortalana Inc., 158 A.D.3d 576, 577 (1st Dep’t 2018); Macquarie Capital (USA) v. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 4:01 am
In Evenwel v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 1:11 am
Alexander Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland 08a0299p.06 2008/08/18 Jerman v. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 1:00 pm
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 718. [read post]
