Ad
related to: trademark non use cancellation agreement california pdf version full
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A defendant claiming fair use of a trademark does not have the burden of showing its use is not likely to cause confusion; Some consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods or services is compatible with the fair use of a trademark. American Needle, Inc. v. NFL: 560 U.S. 183: 2010: 9–0: Non-Trademark: Antitrust Majority: Stevens ...
The nominative use doctrine was first enunciated in 1992 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc. [4] In New Kids on the Block, the court had examined a "New Kids on the Block survey" performed by the defendant, and found that there was no way to ask people their opinion of the band without using its name.
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") is the name for California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq. [1] The CLRA declares unlawful several "methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer". [2]
Several trademark laws merely implement obligations under Article 16.3 [121] of the TRIPS Agreement and protect well-known registered trademarks only under the following conditions: 1- that the goods and services for which the other mark is used or is seeking protection are not identical with or similar to the goods for which the well-known ...
The justices upheld the government’s decision to deny a trademark to Steve Elster, a California man seeking exclusive use of the phrase on T-shirts and potentially other merchandise. It is one ...
In Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognised that good faith contractual performance is a general organising principle of the common law.This duty applies to all contracts, requiring parties to act honestly in the performance of their obligations, and therefore would operate to determine whether activation of a termination for convenience clause had been done in good faith.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the field of trademark law. The case determined that a functional design could not be eligible for trademark protection, and it established a presumption that a patented design is inherently functional.