Search for: "In Re POM"
Results 1 - 20
of 146
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2016, 11:09 am
Now we’re at summary judgment, where Hubbard counterclaimed for cancellation of Pom’s marks on various grounds. [read post]
5 May 2016, 6:00 am
I’m a pretty big fan of pomegranate (for the flavor, not the health benefits), but I’d have to agree that if you’re going to claim specific health benefits, you should have some support to back up the claim. [read post]
25 May 2011, 9:52 am
Pom’s reasons to believe: backed by $25 million in research conducted using Pom juice; only guaranteed 100% pomegranate juice. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 6:27 am
Marks aren’t considered in the abstract (as they are in the registration context) but rather as they’re encountered in the marketplace. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 5:58 am
Although the court of appeals previously found likely confusion between its marks and defendant’s “pūr pŏm” energy drink (which allegedly contains no pomegranate juice at all) and remanded for a re-analysis of the remaining preliminary injunction factors, Pom was unable to show irreparable harm distinct from its showing on likely confusion. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 5:08 pm
, you’re not alone. [read post]
25 May 2012, 5:28 am
Not clear whether Pom has consumer reaction evidence indicating that consumers do not receive a treatment/prevention message from such claims--like "heart therapy," below. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 12:34 pm
In re Pom Wonderful LLC Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 6:32 am
Okay, we'll admit it: We're starting to enjoy this spat between the Federal Trade Commission and pomegranate juice maker POM Wonderful. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 2:27 pm
So does the Supreme Court’s enthusiasm for the Lanham Act mean we’re about to see a flood of Lanham Act lawsuits? [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 11:58 am
We're on a motion to dismiss. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 5:24 am
Static Control Components and POM Wonderful v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 10:50 am
In short, they're making their own law (which is a no-no). [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
"A little known rule enshrined in Social Security's Program Operations Manuals (POMS) is responsible for this stupidity, which was actually re-affirmed by a Federal judge in 2011.But that was then, and this is now, and we have some great news:Big win in EO thanks to @TwilaBrase! [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 4:54 pm
You’re basically asking for the relief you’d get after trial before a trial is held. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 9:38 am
Pom seemed to have a pretty good day. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 9:56 pm
POM has also appealed the ALJ’s findings that POM contends were erroneous. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 1:35 pm
So even if plaintiff’s amended complaint survives, targeted discovery might establish, yet again, that plaintiff’s claims are preempted.It’s early, and we’re pretty sure we haven’t seen the last of this litigation. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 6:56 am
POM’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Coca-Cola’s Affirmative Defense of Unclean Hands (Dec. 1, 2015) (Dkt. 498), and POM’s Objections to Evidence re: Defendant’s Opposing to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Jan. 5, 2016) (Dkt. 521) (Case No. 2:08-cv-06237 (C.D. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 6:56 am
POM’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Coca-Cola’s Affirmative Defense of Unclean Hands (Dec. 1, 2015) (Dkt. 498), and POM’s Objections to Evidence re: Defendant’s Opposing to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Jan. 5, 2016) (Dkt. 521) (Case No. 2:08-cv-06237 (C.D. [read post]
