Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A jury is competent to decide the legal issue of damages stemming from breach of contract or trademark infringement, so long as the accounts between the parties are not so complicated that only acourt of equity could untangle such accounts. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. 376 U.S. 225: March 9, 1964: 9–0 Substantive: Unfair competition
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 ...
Tiffany claimed the contributory trademark infringement of eBay, which was a judicially constructed doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. and found the liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those who actually mislabel goods with the mark of another. As established in ...
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.
Not a ‘slam-dunk case’ Attorney Josh Gerben told CNN that trademark infringement cases are “typically very close calls and depend heavily on the evidence the parties are able to bring forth ...
The Lanham Act prohibits "the deceptive and misleading use of marks" to protect business owners "against unfair competition." [4] The Act defines trademarks as "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof" used by any person "to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the ...
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act.In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.
[1] The Supreme Court found that a manufacturer or distributor may be held liable for contributory trademark infringement where it "intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement." [12]