Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Trade dress; Secondary meaning: Majority: White: Lanham Act: Trade dress is capable of identifying the source of a good or service, so inherently distinctive trade dress is protectable under the Lanham Act without showing the trade dress has acquired secondary meaning. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. 514 U.S. 159: 1995: 9–0 ...
One year later, Taco Cabana sued Two Pesos in federal district court for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act and for theft of trade secrets under Texas common law. [10] Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed that Two Pesos deliberately infringed upon Taco Cabana's trade dress, and ...
United States trade dress case law (4 P) Pages in category "United States trademark case law" The following 68 pages are in this category, out of 68 total.
Pages in category "United States trade dress case law" The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. T.
Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., 426 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2005): Trademark and trade dress. United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency , 458 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2006): Transport of large amounts of currency concealed in an unusual manner could be taken as evidence that the currency was connected with drug trafficking.
§ 43(a) is the "likelihood of confusion" standard for infringement of an unregistered trademark or trade dress, and courts still frequently refer to the provision as "Section 43(a)": 15 U.S.C. § 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden (a) Civil action
An accounting of profits is proper in a trademark infringement case only where the defendant engages in willful infringement, meaning that the defendant attempted to exploit the value of an established name of another. [45] Alternatively, a plaintiff may recover damages incurred if they show a reasonable forecast of lost profits.
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I. Inc. 543 U.S. 111, 124 (2004) ("a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case, ... while the defendant has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion in raising the affirmative defense ...