Search for: "Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co"
Results 1 - 20
of 44
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2022, 6:13 am
[20] Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 1:27 pm
Jacobson Products Co., 514 U. [read post]
11 May 2020, 4:15 am
Jacobson Products Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 4:15 am
Jacobson Products Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 7:54 am
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the examiner’s rejection, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 4:20 pm
Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 9:13 pm
Jacobson Products Co. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 8:00 am
For example, in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 8:00 am
For example, in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 2:57 am
Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000) (citing Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 12:13 am
Nearly a decade later, the US Supreme Court in Qualitex Co v Jacobson Products Co, Inc, held that there existed no objection to the use of color alone as a trade mark, when the colour has attained a secondary meaning and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular brand. [read post]
9 May 2016, 3:17 am
Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995) and Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 11:20 pm
” Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 1:22 am
Syal could face a civil action for the infringement of that trademark or its possible dilution.Great flavors can lead to unpleasant results, no matter how deliciousAs was seen in Qualitex v Jacobson Products, discussed by Justice Costa in the case at hand, a trademark can potentially be "...almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning" - even a flavor, at least prima facie, as long as it indicates a source for the goods: "[T]he essence… [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 7:39 pm
Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 3:19 am
See Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 7:05 am
Jacobson Products Co., the U.S. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 6:25 am
On appeal, the Circuit Court found that the District Court’s decision was inconsistent with a Supreme Court Judgement in Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Products Co. 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) and that the previous court was incorrect because Louboutin’s red soles have the requisite "distinctiveness" to merit trade mark protection. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 6:25 am
On appeal, the Circuit Court found that the District Court’s decision was inconsistent with a Supreme Court Judgement in Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Products Co. 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) and that the previous court was incorrect because Louboutin’s red soles have the requisite "distinctiveness" to merit trade mark protection. [read post]
20 Sep 2012, 1:13 pm
Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162, 115 S. [read post]