Search for: "Trademark Cases"
Results 981 - 1000
of 23,981
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2016, 11:30 am
The United States Supreme Court, on September 29, 2016, granted certiorari in a case involving petitioner Simon Tam, his band, The Slants, and the band’s attempt to register their band name as a trademark. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 11:30 am
The United States Supreme Court, on September 29, 2016, granted certiorari in a case involving petitioner Simon Tam, his band, The Slants, and the band’s attempt to register their band name as a trademark. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 10:57 am
This comes from the In Re Dupont case, that USPTO trademark examiners rely on to decide whether or not you will get a trademark. [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 3:34 am
Patent and Trademark Office, by R. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 11:08 pm
This case has been in litigation for three years now, and it was early-on painted by TechDirt as yet another example of Summit Entertainment’s trademark bullying. [read post]
14 May 2020, 1:32 am
However, as is also the case with the EUIPO, the TMO will notify trademark owners if a similar later application is filed. [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 8:58 am
But this is not a case in which the government has restricted speech on its own property to certain groups or subjects, a fact distinguishing it from nearly all of the Supreme Court’s limited public forum cases. [read post]
20 Dec 2022, 2:26 pm
The court likened this case to the recent case of Reply All Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 6:42 am
By Melissa Barnett On Monday, June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court released a decision in a high profile trademark case rejecting the Lanham Act’s rule against disparaging trademarks as being facially invalid and unconstitutional. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 6:42 am
By Melissa Barnett On Monday, June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court released a decision in a high profile trademark case rejecting the Lanham Act’s rule against disparaging trademarks as being facially invalid and unconstitutional. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 6:42 am
By Melissa Barnett On Monday, June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court released a decision in a high profile trademark case rejecting the Lanham Act’s rule against disparaging trademarks as being facially invalid and unconstitutional. [read post]
28 Oct 2017, 4:30 am
CBS, a case decided in Southern New York in 2012 involving trademark infringement claims asserted by a Times Square street performer against the use of his likeness in the soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful, Characters for Hire argue that the use of the names of fictional persons are merely descriptive of the entertainment services provided by the defendants. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 3:21 pm
Feb. 16, 2009) dissolved a Temporary Restraining Order which had previously been entered in the case. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 12:37 pm
A trademark dispute between a liquor company and a maker of novelty dog toys may not sound like an important First Amendment battleground, but the latest trademark case to come before the U.S. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 5:08 am
This provision is also the focus of the Washington Redskins case, Pro-Football v. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 4:13 pm
A recent United States Supreme Court business litigation case held which types of generic marks can be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 8:06 am
See our blog post entitled, Two Significant Court Decisions Impacting USPTO Trademark Practice, for a more detailed analysis of the Tam case. [read post]
29 Dec 2015, 8:13 am
We have previously discussed how the use of the hashtag in trademarks is continuously evolving. [read post]
23 Dec 2021, 4:15 am
One of the most significant trademark decisions of 2021 came in a case over Hasbro’s EUTM registration for MONOPOLY. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 3:00 am
While this decision will be widely cheered by many who are concerned with political correctness, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that from a legal standpoint this decision is clearly wrong… This is not to say that the trademarks in question are not hurtful to some, but the law simply requires direct evidence that the relevant audience, in this case Native Americans, found the term disparaging when the trademarks were actually registered. [read post]
