Remove Advertising Remove Designs Remove Licensing Remove Service Mark
article thumbnail

TM infringement and false advertising claims related to putative open source software "fork" succeed

43(B)log

Neo4j Enterprise Edition was originally offered under both a paid-for commercial license and the free GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, but Neo4j then replaced that AGPL with a stricter license (the Sweden license), which prohibited the non-paying public from engaging in commercial resale and certain commercial support services.

article thumbnail

Print-on-Demand Services Face More Legal Woes–Canvasfish v. Pixels

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

On the other end are brick and mortar stores that sell trademark-infringing items directly to consumers, regardless of whether the stores design or manufacture those items. Cite to Ohio State v. True, Pixels does not operate a DeYoung online retail store, nor does it offer original paintings.

Artwork 96
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Get 2 Go Sued for Alleged Trademark Infringement of getGo®

Indiana Intellectual Property Law

Wayne, Indiana – Phoenix Intangibles Holding Company apparently licenses the getGo® trademark to Giant Eagle, Inc. According to the Complaint, Giant Eagle acquired the Rickers convenience store chain in 2018 and eventually rebranded those stores under the getGo® marks. Service Mark Registrations, Nos.

article thumbnail

TTAB Affirms Mere Descriptiveness Refusal of HUMAN DATA MARKETPLACE for Online Sale of Data Assets

The TTABlog

The Board, however, had no doubt that HUMAN DATA MARKETPLACE is merely descriptive because it "immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of Applicant’s online marketplace and platform featuring data assets."

article thumbnail

Trade Dress Protection: Laws and Its Relevance

IP and Legal Filings

Additionally, a brand can also license a trade dress in order to obtain monetary advantages. This implies that the configuration and arrangement of shapes, designs, colors, materials that form the trade dress will not be protected if it serves a utilitarian purpose. Image Source: gettyimages].

Law 52