Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held it is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, to an ordinary observer, the resemblance is sufficiently deceptive as to induce him to purchase one, supposing it to be ...
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether the sale of "uncollateralized and uninsured promissory notes payable on demand by the holder" by the Farmers Cooperative of Arkansas and Oklahoma were securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387, [2] is a Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the relevant criteria and basic approach to be undertaken by the Court in analyzing the likelihood of confusion in Canadian trademark law under the Trade-marks Act, 1985 [3] The test adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada is whether, as a matter of first impression, the "casual ...
In determining the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks, a court will examine each trade-mark as a whole, rather than breaking it up into its individual elements. [10] For example, in Molson Companies Ltd. v. John Labatt Ltd., the Federal Court of Appeal compared the trade-marks "Molson Golden" and "Winchester Gold" in their entirety. [11]
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords.It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate courts over tort claims under state common law.
Direct evidence of actual copying by a defendant rarely exists, so plaintiffs must often resort to indirectly proving copying. [1] [page needed] Typically, this is done by first showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not ...
Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".