§
Subdivision 1.Scope.
As used in sections 325D.43 to 325D.48, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this section have the meanings ascribed to them.
§
Subd. 2.Article.
"Article" means a product as distinguished from its trademark, label, or distinctive dress in packaging.
§
Subd. 3.Certification mark.
"Certification mark" means a mark used in connection with the goods or services of a person other than the certifier to indicate geographic origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of the goods or services or to indicate that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization.
§
Subd. 4.Collective mark.
"Collective mark" means a mark used by members of a cooperative, association, or other collective group or organization to identify goods or services and distinguish them from those of others, or to indicate membership in the collective group or organization.
§
Subd. 5.Mark.
"Mark" means a word, name, symbol, device, or any combination of the foregoing in any form or arrangement.
§
Subd. 6.Service mark.
"Service mark" means a mark used by a person to identify services and to distinguish them from the services of others.
§
Subd. 7.Trademark.
"Trademark" means a mark used by a person to identify goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others.
§
Subd. 8.Trade name.
"Trade name" means a word, name, symbol, device, or any combination of the foregoing in any form or arrangement used by a person to identify the person's business, vocation, or occupation and distinguish it from the business, vocation, or occupation of others.
Notes of Decisions
Animal Fair, Inc. v. Amfesco Indus., Inc., 620 F. Supp. 175 (D. Minnesota 1985).
· cites it 4× “§ 1125 (a) and the common law of unfair competition, and for violations of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.43 et seq. Plaintiff Animal Fair, Inc.”
Alsides v. Brown Inst., Ltd., 592 N.W.2d 468 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Appellants contend that the district court erred when it ruled that educational services do not fall within the scope of Minnesota’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.43 -.48 (1998), and in ruling that the act does not allow for the recovery of money…”
Scott v. Mego Int'l, Inc., 519 F. Supp. 1118 (D. Minnesota 1981).
· cites it 2× “The statutes have since been renumbered and the Act now appears as Minn.Stat. 325D.43, et seq. 23 . Even if Mego had standing to seek cancellation of Scott’s Micro Nauts mark, the evidence has not demonstrated that such cancellation should be ordered.”
Parkhill v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 174 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Minnesota 2000).
· cites it 2× “The claims contained in the amended complaint are (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) breach of duty to deal with insured in good faith; (4) unjust enrichment/imposition of a constructive trust; (5) deceptive trade practices under Minn.Stat. § 325D.43 et…”
Gardner v. First Am. Title Insurancr, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (D. Minnesota 2003).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, Plaintiffs- allege that Defendants’ business practices also constitute violations of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.43 et seq. (“MDTPA”), and the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn.”
Parkhill v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 188 F.R.D. 332 (D. Minnesota 1999).
· cites it 2× “rkhill , the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs common law claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty to deal with an insured in good faith, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory and injunctive relief and…”
Yarrington v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Minnesota 2010).
· cites it 2× “; (2) violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.43, et seq.; (3) violations of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn.”
Force v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins., 192 F.R.D. 592 (D. Minnesota 1999).
· cites it 2× “I, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ common-law claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory and injunctive…”
Multi-Tech Sys., Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc., 800 F. Supp. 825 (D. Minnesota 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 1125 (a); (2) common law injurious falsehood and unfair competition; (3) the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.43 et seq.; and (4) the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn.”
Weske v. Samsung Elec., Am., Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 698 (D.N.J. 2013).
“; • Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.43 et seq. and Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn.”
Blair v. Source One Mortg. Servs. Corp., 925 F. Supp. 617 (D. Minnesota 1996).
· cites it 2× “; conversion; violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 325D.43 et seq.; and, negligence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.