Search for: "Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co" Results 21 - 38 of 38
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jul 2012, 3:00 am by Brent Lorentz
Jacobson Products Co, 514 U.S. 159 (1995). [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 7:59 am by Brian A. Hall
Supp. 2d 445, 451, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 11:07 am by Sheppard Mullin
Similarly, the Court embraced the previously defunct argument that the single color of a product is not capable of protection because of the risk of "shade confusion," which argument had been explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 10:46 am by Cicely Wilson
Jacobson Products Co., and that the district court therefore erred by resting its denial of Louboutin’s preliminary injunction motion on that ground. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 1:22 am by Jani
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]
12 Jul 2016, 12:13 am by Eleonora Rosati
 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]
25 Oct 2011, 12:46 pm by Connie Gibilaro
But the United States Supreme Court held in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 11:02 pm
Marketing Displays Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001), citing Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 11:15 pm
Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (2000) [product design cannot be inherently distinctive] and Qualitex Co. v. [read post]