Patently-O

SEPTEMBER 1, 2022

Adidas AG & Kathi Vidal , 21-1903 ( Fed. This ongoing dispute between the two athletic apparel companies has been ongoing since Adidas filed its IPR petition back in in 2012. Adidas AG , 812 F.3d Adidas AG , 955 F.3d Nike, Inc. IPR2013-00067. 3d 1326 (Fed. Nike, Inc. 3d 45 (Fed.

Patent 73

Patent Art 73

The IPKat

JULY 9, 2023

In its case law, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also clarified that the latter has "the same meaning and scope" of Article 10 ECHR, thus also stressing the relevance of related ECtHR case law (most recently, see Opinion of AG Collins in RTL Nederland , para 49). IKEA's famous logo. In sum: stay tuned!

Law 128

Law Intellectual Property Copyright Law Litigation 128

Corsearch

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

Trademark protection is granted to any word, phrase, symbol, or design that conveys a specific brand identity, and it prevents other companies from using similar marks that could cause confusion among consumers and dilute the original brand’s value. Adidas AG vs. Skechers USA, Inc. The result?

Branding 59

Branding Brands Branding Trademark 59

LexBlog IP

DECEMBER 1, 2022

Lowe’s Companies, Inc. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. Panera Bread Company. Patent: 9,054,860 (Digital verified identification system and method). eCeipt LLC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. multiple cases) (W.D. Judge: District Judge Alan D. Claims: Infringement. Defendant: CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC.

Reporting 40

Reporting Litigation Patent Privacy 40

LexBlog IP

JULY 8, 2021

So, for example, large companies will file an Intent-to-Use trademark application to secure priority over a given trademark name, develop and market a product, and then roll out a launch where the product is available to an end user under that trademark. headquartered company and a Japan-based web developer). Adidas AG , 841 F.3d

Trademark 52

Trademark Registration Web Development Advertising 52

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

JANUARY 4, 2021

But in Adidas AG v. Iancu,[13] so all eyes are on an Administrative Procedure Act suit filed by several technology companies in the U.S. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.,[5] Nike Inc.,[6] Efforts to appeal or seek mandamus review of such rulings have all failed, e.g., Cisco Systems Inc.

Art 40

Art Litigation Invention Technology 40

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

FEBRUARY 7, 2022

Reynolds Vapor Company v. In Adidas AG v. Citing Sotera in its analysis of Fintiv factor 4, the Board found that the stipulation “address[ed] any concerns about overlap between the issues presented in the two fora” and instituted IPR. Similarly, in R.J. Philip Morris Products S.A. Motivation to Combine, Not Possible to Combine.

Reporting 52

Reporting Art Invention Patent 52