Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 1021 - 1040
of 5,978
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2007, 11:09 am
Laudato & C. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 5:47 am
But, shortly before the race, plaintiffs bought the registered mark at a bankruptcy auction and sent a C&D even before title was officially transferred. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 5:06 am
"This certification may also serve as a public censure of Judge Fuller's reprehensible conduct, which has no doubt brought disrepute to the Judiciary and cannot constitute the 'good behavior' required of a federal judge," Judicial Conference Secretary James C. [read post]
28 May 2019, 6:09 am
Scott Bennett, Paul Poast, & Allan C. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 5:40 am
The type of infringement which Surtec alleged was the best sort if you're a claimant: same-goods-same-mark infringement under the Trade Marks Act 1994 section 10(1) [= Directive 2008/95, art.5(1)(a)]. [read post]
29 Oct 2024, 6:10 am
In this regard, it is crucial to adhere to the insights gleaned from case law (e.g., C‑40/01, Minimax). [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 11:32 am
As a remedy, Coach is seeking an injunction, statutory damages of $2 million per counterfeit mark, per type of counterfeit good, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs. [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 6:04 am
Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 explains that a groundless threat is:(1) Where a person threatens another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark other than— (a) the application of the mark to goods or their packaging,(b) the importation of goods to which, or to the packaging of which, the mark has been applied, or(c) the supply of services under the mark, any person aggrieved may bring… [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 8:09 am
There wouldn’t be confusion about the source of the tangible good sold in the marketplace, because “[c]onsumers are not aware of the new, media-shifted digital files about which Plaintiff asserts confusion. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 2:31 pm
Assessing the distinctiveness or descriptiveness of a mark under s.3(1)(b) and (c) must be done by reference to the goods and services applied for. [read post]
21 Oct 2023, 5:45 am
The goods in question were valued at approx. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
This operative date could not however differ depending on whether the claim was made for infringement under Article 5(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive (same mark, same goods) or Article 5(1)(b) (similar mark, same goods and a likelihood of confusion); nor could that date be earlier than the date from which the trade mark registration had effect. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 3:06 pm
The Journal of Accountancy published an article earlier this year that attorneys might want to consider as well.Entitled "Letting Go: Evaluating and Firing Clients," it is written by Mark Koziel, CPA. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 1:15 am
In the present case, the court observes, the defendant is using the mark for its own products and is identifying its own goods with that of the mark. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 5:01 am
I've done so without regard to whether I agree with the lawyers' positions as a legal or moral matter; they apparently did a good job as lawyers, and my hat is off to them for that. [read post]
19 Dec 2007, 5:57 pm
Section 1117(c) provides: ‘In a case involving the use of a counterfeit mark (as defined in section 1116(d) of this title) in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits under subsection (a) of this section, an award of statutory damages for any such use in connection with the… [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 6:21 am
Section 3(I)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 were all relied upon. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 8:11 am
Marks claming one color by class of goods—neat slide with bubbles representing # of color marks by color. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 3:43 am
The particular factors informing that decision were: the fact that that Amazon used a uniform method of presenting the offers published on its website, regardless of whether the goods advertised were its own or third party retailers’;the fact that it placed its own logo on all those advertisements; andthe fact that it offered third-party sellers additional services consisting of the storing and shipping of their goods.In the present case, the Court held that the Louboutin v Amazon… [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 4:24 am
This is a practical issue, answered Max: if the goods are consumer goods, we'd go for a low level of protectability and focus on the average European consumer -- but if we were to take the case from the perspective of an author's work, we'd have to ask if this was a work of the author's original creativity, as in the Court of Justice ruling in Case C-5/08 Infopaq. [read post]
