Search for: "Distinctive Brands, Inc."
Results 741 - 760
of 1,243
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2013, 2:19 pm
Before anyone else emails the IPKat to let him know, he can tell you that he is fully aware of the two big trade mark rulings from the Court of Appeal for England and Wales last Friday in Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Cadbury UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1174 and JW Spear & Son Ltd, Mattel Inc and Mattel UK Ltd v Zynga Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 1175 and he will be providing separate Katposts on them in the fullness of time. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 11:38 pm
” Meanwhile in the US, according to Android branding guidelines, the Android name is property of Google Inc. and the Robot logo is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 1:18 pm
Groeneveld Transport Efficiency, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 4:53 am
” Meanwhile in the US, according to Android branding guidelines, the Android name is property of Google Inc. and the Robot logo is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 7:37 am
Ct. 2466 (2013), in his words, “makes no sense”:What emerges from these cases is a strange distinction: Those who take the brand name version and are injured may sue, but those who take the generic version are out of luck. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 7:02 am
Haydel Enterprises Inc., No. 12–2515, 2013 WL 4591195 (E.D. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 3:47 am
Sheetz of Delaware, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 12:54 pm
Plastipure, Inc., No. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 6:50 pm
Chatr Wireless Inc., 2013 ONSC 5315 (Ont. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 9:15 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 7:17 pm
Indeed, the Supreme Court noted, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 2:28 am
Here, "craft" and "ware" are words of relatively low distinctiveness, and neither substantially changes the suggestive meaning of EDGE. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 12:02 pm
It also claims that Liqui Moly's use will dilute the "distinctive quality" Royal Purple's trademarks. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 2:01 pm
Lexis 1688, at *36) to Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 6:24 am
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 10:16 am
Last year, the Court held in PLIVA, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 5:33 am
McAfee, Inc., 2013 WL 3200658 (N.D. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm
“[T]he FDCA requires a generic drug to have the same active ingredients, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and labeling as the brand-name drug on which it is based. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:45 am
According to the trial judge, skin care and nail care were distinct market sectors, and brands within those sectors could operate in both professional and consumer markets; the strongest evidence of confusion among customers was an email sent to Lumos by Sonia McMilla, the operator of Cloud Nine Day Spa, who had encountered the LUMOS nail product range and asked whether that was a different branch of the company. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 10:42 am
Pfizer, Inc., No 12-1647, slip op. (8th Cir. [read post]
