Search
Searching Content indexed under Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration by Peter Brody ordered by Published Date Descending.
Links to Result pages
 
1  
 
Title
Country
Organisation
Author
Date
1
Supreme Court Holds That The Ban On Registration Of Immoral And Scandalous Trademarks Is Unconstitutional Viewpoint Discrimination
In 2017, in Matal v. Tam (582 U.S. ___ (2017)), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the ban on the registration of "disparaging" trademarks was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination...
United States
24 Jul 2019
2
Federal Circuit Holds That ITC's Trademark Decisions Are Not Binding On District Courts, Creating A Potential Circuit Split
The U.S. International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial independent agency based in Washington, D.C., is a common forum for patent, trademark, and trade secret disputes.
United States
17 May 2019
3
Supreme Court Unanimously Reverses Ninth Circuit's Decision In "POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola"
On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. ruled that a competitor may bring a Lanham Act false advertising claim.
United States
18 Jun 2014
4
ICANN Approves Plans To Launch New Top-Level Domains; Sets January 12, 2012 Start Date
In a long-awaited move with broad implications for brand owners, on Monday, June 20, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved plans to launch a potentially unlimited number of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
United States
24 Jun 2011
5
Court Holds Google’s Sale of Trademarks as Keywords Does Not Create Likelihood of Confusion and is Not Trademark Infringement
On August 3, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in "Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc"., Case No. 1:09-cv-00736-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Jul. 10, 2009) ruled on summary judgment that Google’s practice of selling Rosetta Stone’s trademarks as keyword triggers to third party advertisers for use in their Sponsored Link does not create a likelihood of confusion as to the source or origin of Rosetta Stone’s products, or otherwise violate Rosetta Stone’s trademark rights.
United States
16 Sep 2010
Links to Result pages
 
1