We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 55

Damages awarded on Lanham Act default judgment

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 18 2014

Judge Zagel awarded damages in this Lanham Act case after he and Judge Conlon entered default judgment against the defendants. Pursuant to its

Descriptive trademark does not survive summary judgment

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2014

The Court granted summary judgment for defendant in this Lanham Act case involving alleged trademark infringement regarding plaintiff’s BOX PACKAGING

No irreparable harm where plaintiff delays seeking injunction

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2014

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied plaintiff Real-Time Reporters’ (“RTR”) preliminary injunction motion in this Lanham Act matter involving RTR’s REAL-TIME

Similar claims do not alone warrant joinder

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2014

Judge Darrah denied defendants’ (collectively “Arrowsound”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, but granted Arrowsound’s motion to sever. The

Limiting interrogatory language allows limited response

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 18 2014

Judge St. Eve granted in part defendant Electro Power’s motion to compel further interrogatory responses and denied Electro Power’s motion to compel

Domain name squatting to gain leverage can trigger "bad faith intent" in an ACPA claim

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2014

A required element to sustain a claim under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection (ACPA) (15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)(A)) is proof that the

Court spares third-party service providers from contributory trademark infringement

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 14 2014

Trademark owners frustrated by cybersquatting will not be able to sue third-party service providers for contributory infringement, according to a new

Third-party service providers not liable for contributory trademark infringement

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 10 2013

Trademark owners frustrated by cybersquatting will not be able to sue third-party service providers for contributory infringement, according to a

TRO partially delegated for impending trade show

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 4 2013

Judge Zagel granted in part plaintiff Dental USA’s motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction in this trademark and design patent

District court reaffirms that service provider will be granted immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 18 2013

Via Section 230, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides broad immunity for service providers, hosts and website operators for claims stemming