Search for: "Goodwill v. Goodwill"
Results 1741 - 1760
of 2,133
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2010, 11:36 pm
Supreme Court, in Mac's Shell Service v. [read post]
19 Jun 2010, 9:00 am
Roberts v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 3:43 pm
The purpose of the dilution doctrine is not to protect the consumer, but to protect the property right and goodwill that a company has developed in a mark. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 5:51 am
" Albany Molecular Research, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
Mitty J surveyed the various tests for proportionality, articulated in the common law (by Lord Clyde in de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing [1991] 1 AC 69; in Strasbourg (Sporrong & Lönnroth v Sweden [1982] 5 EHRR 35) and James v United Kingdom [1986] 8EHRR 123. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:07 am
See Ultra Internet Media, S.A. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 2:14 am
The formative analysis was presented in a pair of cases from the same Panel, City Views Limited v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 4:00 am
Further, contrary to the petitioners' contention, the law does not limit the application of a lack of marketability discount to the goodwill of a corporation in all instances (see Matter of Brooklyn Home Dialysis Training Ctr., 293 AD2d 747; Hall v King, 265 AD2d 244, 245; Lehman v Piontkowski, 203 AD2d 257, 259; Matter of Raskin v Walter Karl, Inc., 129 AD2d 642, 644; Matter of Joy Wholesale Sundries, 125 AD2d 310; Matter of Fleischer, 107 AD2d 97; Matter of… [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 12:52 am
Qualtex, one of the UK's less successful IP litigants in recent years (see here and here), must have had the smile wiped from their own faces when they lost again -- this time in Numatic International Ltd v Qualtex UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 1237 (C), a Chancery Division ruling from Mr Justice Floyd on 28 May.In this action Numatic sued Qualtex for passing off. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 12:13 pm
Arkema, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 11:52 am
I would be interested in hearing arguments for and against pre-emptive letters (as in - 'please assure me that I'm not about to infringe your rights') of the kind described in this case, Numatic International v Qualtex [2010] EWHC 1237 (Ch) e. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 4:09 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 10:19 am
See Mini's Cupcakes v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 11:13 pm
As the High Court’s references to Champagne Heidsieck v Buxton (a case, if not exactly dear to my heart, certainly engraved on it!) [read post]
13 May 2010, 3:27 am
The Southern District's decision was later affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Nordwind v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 10:36 pm
The case cite is Campagnolo S.R.L. v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 6:00 am
Passing off, on the other hand, protects a right of property in business or goodwill. [read post]
11 May 2010, 3:02 pm
In the introductory part of the Agreement it is stated that the seller is engaged in the business of DNA micro-arrays, methods to perform highly parallel experiments on micro-arrays, single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping, and other drug discovery products and services and that the buyer desires to purchase from the seller certain assets of the business. [20] […] The purchased assets inter alia include all tangible personal property listed on a schedule 2.1(a), all IP listed or described… [read post]
10 May 2010, 4:00 am
Volkswagen Golf GTI Bag Guerrilla Marketing Example Advertising Agency: Agence V, Paris, France 6. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:50 pm
Or, to put the question another way, in a multicultural country where a kaleidoscopic range of beliefs and practices are accepted, for the sake of convenience and goodwill, as religions, will the meritorious content of each and every one of these be beyond argument? [read post]
