Search for: "Ulrich v. Ulrich"
Results 61 - 80
of 191
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2024, 5:39 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]
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]
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]
8 May 2025, 4:26 am
The court also upheld the Board’s finding that APR had effectively conceded a likelihood of confusion, but concluded that Heritage could not block registration without demonstrating protectable rights in its prior marks (Heritage Alliance 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]
26 Sep 2022, 6:32 am
The case is Romano v. [read post]
11 Mar 2025, 6:38 am
Because the district court had dismissed the state-law unfair competition claims solely due to the dismissal of the federal claims, the appellate court reinstated them as well (Cardinal Motors, Inc. 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]
24 Nov 2009, 3:10 am
Anderson, Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea Case (Romania v. [read post]
9 Aug 2007, 7:18 am
Este post surge de una linda entrada de Ulrich ( ¿Existe un derecho a ser sujeto de experimentación?) [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 11:08 pm
Ese mismo día, el amigo Ulrich analizaba el tema del día en este post. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 8:52 am
Kameri-Mbote, Migai AkechKelo v. [read post]
31 Mar 2025, 4:00 am
Ulrich, United States V Skrmetti—Testing the Transition to Politicized Regulation of Medicine, (JAMA. 2025;333(10):839–840).S. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 4:35 am
Supreme Court to decide the issue, Jerman v. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 10:37 am
” The 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron v. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 12:32 pm
In Mantonya v. [read post]
