Search for: "Marks v. Polaroid Corporation"
Results 1 - 20
of 22
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2023, 7:03 am
A&E Television Networks, LLC v. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 1:27 pm
LTTB v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 1:47 pm
In most instances, as in Tiffany v. [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 1:42 pm
Polyglycoat Corp. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 3:52 am
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
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]
22 Jun 2016, 5:41 am
On appeal, the Second Circuit in due course applied the Polaroid factors, the first of which is “similarity of the marks. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 11:52 am
expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market” under Interpace Corporation v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 1:02 pm
See Polaroid Corp. v. [read post]
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]
7 Feb 2014, 5:25 pm
In a timeline of self-execution, comes after Missouri v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 9:13 am
(The Second Circuit's Polaroid case is the other). [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 1:41 pm
Thomas McCarthy as one of just a handful of fanciful — hence strong — marks joining ranks with the likes of CLOROX, EXXON, and POLAROID. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 11:36 am
I am reminded of Shamrock Holdings, Inc. 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]
19 Jan 2011, 2:56 pm
Partnership v. [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]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) District Court N D Illinois: False marking false marking false marking all at up to $500 per offense: Simonian v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) District Court N D Illinois: False marking false marking false marking all at up to $500 per offense: Simonian v. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 10:49 pm
See also Polaroid Corp. v. [read post]
