Search for: "Bonn v. Bonn"
Results 101 - 120
of 369
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Sep 2019, 4:44 am
The appellate court reversed a district court’s denial of the German company’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded with instructions that the case be dismissed (C5 Medical Werks, LLC v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 3:59 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a summary order affirming the district court’s judgment (Oneida Indian Nation v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that all of Engage’s asserted marks were merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning, including sole only mark the district court deemed valid mark but not infringed by Intellisphere (Engage Healthcare Communications, LLC v. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 5:16 am
While the plaintiff’s filing of an application to register the SULKA mark in the United States was “certainly relevant” to intent to market products in the United States, it had little bearing on his ability to expand his business to the United States (Selah v. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 7:12 am
Not only did appellee’s arguments have virtually no likelihood of success because the seller had waived them, but its actions in bringing the appeal were found to be a tactic to draw out the proceedings as long as possible while knowing that it had no viable substantive defense (Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 12:50 am
The district court was instructed on remand to determine whether the retailer consented to the publication (Sleepy’s LLC v. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 1:04 am
The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s determination that Laerdal failed to plead its trade dress claims with adequate detail, vacated the ITC’s decision that no relief was warranted, and remanded to the ITC to determine the appropriate remedy after consideration of public interest concerns (Laerdal Medical Corp. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:31 am
Fields Famous Brands, LLC v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 1:00 am
The court remanded trademark infringement and other claims brought by dietary supplement seller Charles Curry to the federal district court in Chicago for further proceedings (Curry v. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 2:30 pm
Addison v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 8:43 am
. - Law), Lajos Vékás (ELTE - Law), Yehuda Elkana (Central European Univ.), & Nenad Dimitrijevic (Central European Univ. - Political Science) have published Resolving International Conflicts: Liber Amicorum Tibor Várady (Central European Univ. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 2:42 am
In doing so, the Court applied the framework set out in the influential Huawei v ZTE decision of the European Court of Justice, despite the patent in suit not being a standard essential patent. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 12:56 am
Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction to the extent that it enjoined the sale of products that the mark owner chose not to buy back, and it remanded the case for reexamination of which product lines were covered by the injunction (Really Good Stuff, LLC v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 4:17 am
The court also affirmed a district judge’s order sanctioning L&L for failing to disclose its third-party license agreement in discovery (Beach Mart, Inc. v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 7:53 am
An award of over $212,000 in nontaxable costs for expert witness expenses was, however, vacated, because there was no statutory basis for awarding those costs (San Diego Comic Convention v. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 4:09 am
& Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:07 am
In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying ACT’s request for a permanent injunction because ACT failed to establish that it would sustain irreparable harm (ACT 898 Products, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 3:32 am
The Eleventh Circuit agreed with that conclusion based on the plain language of the licensing agreement and affirmed the lower court’s decision (Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 4:56 am
(CAI), was affirmed (Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 1:34 am
Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to allow it to reconsider this award (4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. [read post]
