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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 14

Imitation is not always the sincerest form of flattery: Gucci wins trademark infringement suit, but court limits damages

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2012

In a suit between two well-known fashion houses, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the imitation by Guess?, Inc. and its licensees of Gucci America Inc.’s marks on certain Guess products constituted trademark infringement and dilution

Washington v. National Football League

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 5 2012

District court grants NFL’s motion to dismiss class action filed by former football players alleging that, by not allowing the players the rights to game films and images from the games in which they played, the NFL is monopolizing the market for former players’ likenesses, in violation of antitrust laws

Blocking “unfair competition” from China - a new weapon for US industry

  • Frost Brown Todd LLC
  • -
  • China, USA
  • -
  • November 16 2011

US manufacturers have home-turf protection through Section 337 of the 1930 Tariff Act

Overhead Door Corporation distributor asserts Unfair Competition Claim against Atlanta-area garage door company

  • Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 13 2012

On November 2, 2012, D.H. Pace Company, Inc. of North Kansas City, Missouri, doing business as the Overhead Door Company of Atlanta, filed a complaint in the Northern District of Georgia against AOD Group, LLC and its principal owner and officer, Garrett Waldrop, both of Lawrenceville, Georgia, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and unfair and deceptive trade practices under O.C.G.A. 10-1-370 et seq

District Court dismisses antitrust claim against direct broadcast satellite television provider

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2011

Plaintiff, a major direct broadcast satellite (DBS) television provider and holder of seven registered trademarks and service marks incorporating the word "DISH," brought an action against defendants alleging that defendant Dish 1 Up, a retailer of another major DBS provider, operates call centers using a "confusingly similar phone number" to plaintiff's 1-800 number to mislead and confuse consumers

A king sized battle between mattress manufacturers

  • Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2011

On March 17, 2010, Mebane, North Carolina based Kingsdown, Inc. filed suit against King Koil Licensing Company, Inc. accusing King Koil of patent infringement, federal trademark infringement and unfair competition, and common law trademark and unfair competition

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 24 2011

Second Circuit affirms judgment in favor of publisher, holding, as a matter of first impression, that the first sale doctrine does not apply to works manufactured outside of the United States

Credit rating agency scores low in trademark contest

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2011

Considering whether the federally registered trademark for credit scoring, “300-850” was invalid as merely descriptive, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a district court’s summary judgment that the mark was invalid and upheld a jury verdict concluding that the trademark registration was procured by fraud

Patsy’s: food fight!

  • Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 2 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision that neither Patsy’s Italian Restaurant nor Patsy’s Pizzeria, located in New York City, has exclusive rights to the name PATSY’S

Red not sole-ly Louboutin’s

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2011

A New York court has refused to rule that red soled shoes are exclusively the domain of French designer Christian Louboutin

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy