Search for: "Marks v. Polaroid Corporation" Results 1 - 14 of 14
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2015, 4:29 am
The test for determining infringement is set out in Polaroid Corporation v Polarad Electronics Corporation 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961). [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 5:41 am by Matthew David Brozik
On appeal, the Second Circuit in due course applied the Polaroid factors, the first of which is “similarity of the marks. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 6:11 am
In the Second Circuit, which includes New York, the test for confusion is that as laid down in the Polaroid Corp v Polarad Elecs. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 5:25 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  In a timeline of self-execution, comes after Missouri v. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 11:52 am by Ron Coleman
 expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market” under Interpace Corporation v. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 6:17 pm by Ron Coleman
 Yes, the court goes through all those undying Polaroid factors at length, making the following observation on page 17 under the “Similarities of the Parties[‘s] Marks” section, in words so droll that I actually envy the power of their understatement: The marks bear certain obvious similarities, at least when considered in the abstract: “AT&T THANKS” and “THANK YOU” share five central letters, are partially… [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 3:52 am by Ron Coleman
 expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market” under Interpace Corporation v. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 10:41 am
And in law, in the January that the AmeriKat was born, Kodak lost a patent infringement case with Polaroid, a loss which signalled Kodak's exit from the instant camera business. [read post]