Search for: "Goodwill v. Goodwill"
Results 1061 - 1080
of 2,133
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2014, 8:43 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 1:20 pm
The Perfect 10 v, Google case, which Schnieder Rothman cite in their filing, deals with almost this exact issue. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 2:08 pm
” Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 12:21 pm
If process claims are available, and relevant to consumers, in many more contexts than previously realized, among other things that has implications for the First Amendment treatment of advertising regulation—compare the claims made in the Nike v. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 4:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 3:44 am
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Shaun Coley (trading as BMW Mini Gearbox Centre) is an extempore ruling of Judge Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales, late last month, which this Kat spotted as a note on the Lawtel subscription-only service. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 8:34 am
The law does not demand good faith from a seller in “those vague commendations of his wares which manifestly are open to difference of opinion,” said Justice Holmes in Deming v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 1:12 pm
(For more on that, see our post on Los Angeles Unified School District v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 4:39 am
Brian Lichtenberg, LLC v. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 1:56 am
The yoghurt case in question is Fage UK Ltd & Another v Chobani UK Ltd & Another [the decision of Briggs J at trial is at [2013] EWHC 630 (Ch), noted by the IPKat here; the appeal decision, at [2014] EWCA Civ 5, featuring Lords Justices Lewison, Kitchin and Longmore, is noted by the IPKat here]. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 12:30 pm
In infringement situations a survey may have been said to usurp the role of the trial judge, and in that case Lewison LJ commented:“the general message [is] that evidence from consumers in this kind of case (i.e. trade mark infringement involving ordinary consumer goods or services) should only be admitted if it is of real value; and even then only if the value justifies the cost; and that judges should be robust gatekeepers in that respect”The decision of 22 July 2014 in… [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 12:00 am
The Federal Circuit has issued an opinion in VirtualAgility Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 4:40 am
P’ship v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 10:31 am
In Branin v. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 8:26 am
Yellow Group LLC v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 12:00 pm
The recent tax court holding in Bross Trucking, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 7:41 am
The answer, at least on the outset, is not an obvious one, but was faced by the United Kingdom Court of Appeals over a decade ago.The case in question is 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd, decided in the very first year of the second millennium, which dealt with the phone number "800-FLOWERS", registered in the US as a trademark in the mid 1980s by the company 800-Flowers Inc. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 6:13 am
Ahmed v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 9:22 am
Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 4:49 am
Orvec’s goodwill was not disputed. [read post]
