Search for: "Lanham v. United States"
Results 61 - 80
of 1,021
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2020, 10:42 am
” A recent case from the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trade name can be “distinct” when it incorporates two generic terms which are not typically linked together. [read post]
11 May 2022, 8:33 am
Case date: 07 March 2022 Case number: No. 19-56138 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
17 Nov 2006, 5:28 am
In Optimus v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 12:40 pm
§ 1125(c))• Count V - Federal Cybersquatting - ACPA and Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 2:00 am
Case date: 02 February 2021 Case number: No. 18-2183 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 9:45 am
This week, the United States Supreme Court may have made it considerably easier for a trademark owner to recover lost profits from a trademark infringer. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 8:14 am
In an August 15, 2013 ruling, Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the cross motions for partial judgment of plaintiff L'Oreal USA, Inc. and defendant Trend Beauty Corp. in L'Oreal's action alleging Lanham Act and state law claims against Trend Beauty. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 1:05 pm
This Court applied Bulova Watch in International Café where we held that “the Lanham Act confers jurisdiction over extraterritorial disputes involving trademark infringement and unfair competition when: 1) Defendant is a United States corporation; 2) the foreign activity had substantial effects in the United States; and 3) exercising jurisdiction would not interfere with the sovereignty of another nation. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 3:06 am
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reversed the TTAB's ruling in Bayer Consumer Care AG v. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 6:32 am
Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17 (2005), quoting United States v. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 6:00 am
During the summer of 2019, the United States Supreme Court determined that the prohibition against scandalous marks contained in the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional prohibition on protected speech. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 8:54 am
In a recent ruling, the United States District Court for the for the District of Maine ruled that a future competitor of Poland Springs® lacked Article III standing to bring a Lanham Act false advertising suit against the Nestlé Waters. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 7:25 am
AFL Telecommunications LLC v. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 4:26 am
The long-running saga of Bayer v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 1:01 am
No. 01-2394 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 2003 U.S. [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 6:18 am
Operation Technology, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 12:16 am
Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 17-55325, 29 June 2018 appeared first on Kluwer Trademark Blog. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 10:18 am
De Simone v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 5:28 pm
This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated ruling in the Lee v. [read post]
8 Sep 2012, 6:27 pm
Under United States law, such lawyers' attention would focus on federal trademark law, the Lanham Act, 15 USC §1125(a)(1)(A), (B), and the AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 USC §1125(d). [read post]
