Court of Appeals in New York City affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Apple, finding that the IONEX mark was weak, the parties sold very different products to very different customers, and that there was no evidence of bad faith or of actual confusion in the (Saxon Glass Technologies Inc. v. [read post]

Bush, Hamdan v. [read post]

You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Highlights this week included: England and Wales High Court holds employee-inventor entitled to ‘fair share’ compensation: Kelly and Chui v GE Healthcare Ltd (IP Spotlight) (Out-Law) (Managing Intellectual Property) (Law360) (IPKat) (IAM) USPTO roundtable on deferred examination – reports and analysis (Inventive Step) (Patent Docs)… [read post]

Volkswagon-based transfer mandamus order in In re TS Tech USA (Inventive Step) (Hal Wegner) (EDTexweblog.com) (EDTexweblog.com) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) (Patently-O) (Law360) (Patent Prospector) ECJ decides Obelix too famous to be confused with MOBILIX mobile phone service: Les Éditions Albert René Sàrl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Orange A/S (Class 46) (IPKat)   Global Global – General Moral… [read post]

For example Williams v. [read post]