Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp. is a key United States legal case from 1961 in trademark infringement law. It is also cited in personality rights particularly around celebrities. The decision argued that trademark infringement is measured by the multi-factor "likelihood of confusion" test. That is, a new mark will infringe on an existing ...
For example, in Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., [29] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit imposed secondary liability on a flea market landlord who provided the “necessary marketplace” for the sale of infringing goods. The court held that contributory trademark infringement existed because the landlord was ...
In the 1917 decision in Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co., [5] the federal courts created the "Aunt Jemima Doctrine" which protects a trademark even when used to sell a different product (in this case, pancake syrup instead of pancake mix). [6] In 1946, Congress passed the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1127). The Lanham Act defines ...
The lawsuit claims the product generated $7 million in revenue a year later. “It took a really long time,” Fassett said. “I started selling it myself and people loved it and I kept trying to ...
• Don't use internet search engines to find AOL contact info, as they may lead you to malicious websites and support scams. Always go directly to AOL Help Central for legitimate AOL customer support. • Never click suspicious-looking links. Hover over hyperlinks with your cursor to preview the destination URL.
Apple has agreed to settle a lawsuit accusing the company of knowingly letting scammers exploit its gift cards, and keep stolen funds for itself. According to a filing on Wednesday in federal ...
Pages in category "Polaroid Corporation" The following 13 pages are in this category, out of 13 total. ... Polaroid Collection; Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elects.
They’ve since been able to recover about $36,000, but the rest is gone, along with their ability to purchase the condo, which has “substantially” increased in value, the lawsuit states.