Sentences with phrase «defendants using the trademark»

According to the complaint, not only are the defendants using the trademark without a license, but they're using it on items like $ 2,300 purses that aren't even big enough to hold the keys to your chopper and $ 1,600 dresses that look like slightly artsier versions of those skeleton t - shirts lazy people wear on Halloween.

Not exact matches

Filing a trademark violation case for using the world «Fortune» which they knew was owned by Time Magazine, and not them, was just a way to take advantage of the system by someone with more money that the poor defendant had.

In fact, when Apple announced the launch of the iPad on January 27, 2010, the Publisher Defendants agreed to allow Apple to use their trademarks in connection therewith.

Prior jurisprudence holds that the rights granted to the owners of such «official marks» are distinct from the usual rights granted to trademark owners, and depend on whether the mark used by the defendant is «likely to be mistaken for» the official mark, as opposed to the passing - off analysis which depends on whether or not there is a «likelihood of confusion» and involves a consideration of the goods and services, channels of trade and public recognition of the respective marks involved.

The defendants counterclaimed claiming that HD were selling and advertising clothing and accessories with SCREAMIN» EAGLE in an effort to diminish, destroy or acquire the goodwill of the defendants who claimed to have been using the trademark SCREAMING EAGLE for over 20 years.

The plaintiff, a trucking company, brought a trademark infringement suit against the defendant, a truck driver job posting website, alleging unauthorized use of the plaintiff's trademark on the defendant's website.

To prove the defendant's use of the trademark, the plaintiff intended to introduce at trial screenshots of defendant's website taken from the Wayback Machine, along with authenticating deposition testimony from an employee of the Internet Archive.

In light of the conclusion that the termination was justified, Dunkin' Donuts was entitled to the requested injunctive relief, enjoining the defendants from continued use of the franchise trademarks and trade dress.

For example, in a case related to the prohibition of using a trademark where we represent the Defendant's interests, we refer to the Plaintiff's exhaustion.

1st Technology sought a preliminary injunction to prevent further transfer of the trademarks, and to prevent defendants from using the trademarks in connection with online gambling.

Here, the Ninth Circuit Court applied the nominative fair use test to the defendant and concluded the Defendant's use of these trademarked items was permissible because there was no other practical way for the Defendant to describedefendant and concluded the Defendant's use of these trademarked items was permissible because there was no other practical way for the Defendant to describeDefendant's use of these trademarked items was permissible because there was no other practical way for the Defendant to describeDefendant to describe herself.

To establish a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act or common law, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion.

According to the 13 - page complaint filed in federal court, Faraday Bicycles says that it registered the trademark for «FARADAY» in October 2013, which «predates any use of the name «Faraday» by Defendant, and predates the existence of Defendant as an organized entity.»

To show nominative fair use, a defendant must demonstrate, among other things, that using the trademark is necessary to describe both parties» products.

If the trademark holder can demonstrate the likelihood of confusion, then the second step involves the defendant showing that its use of the other party's trademarked terms is «fair».

First, the party bringing the lawsuit must demonstrate the likelihood of confusion which will result from the defendant's use of the trademarked terms.