Remove companies state-bar-of-georgia
article thumbnail

Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

to see if it could find some soft spot in Georgia state law. Edible lost at the lower court, the appeals court , and now the Georgia Supreme Court–in a unanimous decision. They filed a trademark lawsuit in 2018 but abandoned the suit when it got sent to arbitration. However, they didn’t give up! They could not.

IP 126
article thumbnail

Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The trademark owner argued that the search results didn’t disclaim an affiliation between the companies, but it had no evidence to support that concern and thus it couldn’t survive summary judgment. The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Guest Post by Prof. Contreras: HTC v. Ericsson – Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fifth Circuit Doesn’t Know What FRAND Means Either

Patently-O

Guest Post by Prof. Jorge Contreras of the University of Utah S.J. Quinney School of Law. Disclosure statement: in 2019, the author served as an expert for HTC in an unrelated, non-U.S. In August 31, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in HTC Corp. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson , 2021 U.S. LEXIS 26250, __ F.4 4 th __ (Fed.

article thumbnail

Guest Post: Third-Party Litigation Funding: Disclosure to Courts, Congress, and the Executive

Patently-O

Stroud is General Counsel at Unified Patents – an organization often adverse to litigation-funded entities. [1] 1] He is also an adjunct professor at American University Washington College of Law. Patent assertion finance today is a multibillion-dollar business. [2] 2] Virtually nonexistent in the patent space in the U.S.

article thumbnail

GEORGIA V. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND HOW THE COURT SHOULD SOLVE THEM

JIPL Online

iii] The Supreme Court performed a balancing of these interests when it decided Georgia v. The Copyright Act expressly forbids copyright protection for works of the United States Government. [v] v] However, this restriction is only applicable to the federal government and has no impact on the states or local governmental units. [vi]

article thumbnail

15th Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable: Session 1: Congress and the Courts (including the role of the Supreme Court)

43(B)log

Introduction: Rebecca Tushnet What might we derive from things the Court has said about trademark of late? The purpose of trademark is consumer protection; source-identification is the most relevant consideration but not the entirety of TM law. Maybe to this we can add in Dastar. Dinwoodie and Janis taken out of context?

article thumbnail

Monthly Wrap Up (October 5, 2022): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Cases, Developments and Posts

LexBlog IP

District Court for the District of Massachusetts imposed this sanction against the individual defendant and his company. In Busey Bank v. Turnery, et al. , ” A link to the opinion can be found here , and Law360′ s article on the case can be found here. In RedWolf Energy Trading, LLC v. BIA Capital Management, LLC, et al.,