Search for: "S & L Vitamins, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc."
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2007, 5:49 pm
By Eric Goldman S & L Vitamins, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2008, 6:49 pm
S & L Vitamins, Inc., 2008 WL 2116646 (D. [read post]
23 May 2008, 12:51 am
S & L Vitamins, Inc., No. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 3:16 pm
In contrast, in the Eastern District of New York, the Court (1) refused to require Australian Gold to prove agency and, despite our request, refused to charge the jury with the elements of agency; (2) instructed the jury, over our objection, that “ S&L Vitamins may be liable for tortious interference with contracts if you find S&L intentionally caused third parties to purchase Australian Gold… [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 2:49 pm
The rest of the case is really interesting too, with facts highly similar to the Australian Gold cases (see S&L Vitamins v. [read post]
5 Feb 2009, 9:01 pm
The court nodded to S&L Vitamins v. [read post]
6 Jul 2008, 5:09 am
Hatfield (10th Cir 2006) * S&L Vitamins v. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 10:27 am
District Court for the Eastern District of New York last week, in the case of S & L Vitamins, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2009, 11:20 am
The S&L Vitamins v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 12:54 pm
Hatfield (10th Cir 2006); S&L Vitamins v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 1:30 am
On the other hand, in S&L Vitamins, Inc v Australian Gold, Inc, it was deemed this was the case, and that the incorporation of metatags would not constitute a use of a mark and therefore infringe it.As can be seen, the status of metatags and trademarks is quite uncertain, although the Canadian perspective seems a lot more clear. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 7:50 pm
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.; McNamara v. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 1:53 pm
S&L Vitamins, Inc. v. [read post]
