15 U.S.C. § 105

PREEMPTION AND NULLIFICATION OF PRE-EXISTING TERRORISM EXCLUSIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)General Nullification.—Any terrorism exclusion in a contract for property and casualty insurance that is in force on the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 26, 2002] shall be void to the extent that it excludes losses that would otherwise be insured losses.“(b)General Preemption.—Any State approval of any terrorism exclusion from a contract for property and casualty insurance that is in force on the date of enactment of this Act, shall be void to the extent that it excludes losses that would otherwise be insured losses.“(c)Reinstatement of Terrorism Exclusions.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) or any provision of State law, an insurer may reinstate a preexisting provision in a contract for property and casualty insurance that is in force on the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 26, 2002] and that excludes coverage for an act of terrorism only—“(1) if the insurer has received a written statement from the insured that affirmatively authorizes such reinstatement; or“(2) if—“(A) the insured fails to pay any increased premium charged by the insurer for providing such terrorism coverage; and“(B) the insurer provided notice, at least 30 days before any such reinstatement, of—“(i) the increased premium for such terrorism coverage; and“(ii) the rights of the insured with respect to such coverage, including any date upon which the exclusion would be reinstated if no payment is received.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1935–2023 · leading case: Kenney v. Helix TCS, 939 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kenney v. Helix TCS, 939 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2019). “A trademark qualifies for registration and its associated benefits if the trademark owner has “used [the mark] in commerce” or has a bona fide intent to do so, 15 U.S.C. § 105 , and courts have long held that the commerce must be “lawful” for it to satisfy the “use in commerce”…”

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Amoco & Food Shop 5, Inc., 360 F. Supp. 2d 882 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “Plaintiff Lorillard Tobacco Company (“Lorillard”) filed a six-count complaint pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 105 et seq. seeking damages and injunc-tive relief against defendant Amoco & Food Shop 5, Inc.”

Perry v. Am. Hecolite Denture Corp., 78 F.2d 556 (8th Cir. 1935). “” Section 28, Act of February 20, 1905, 15 USCA § 107, title 15 USCA § 105, p. 413. “Otherwise on a suit for infringement no damages shall be recovered except on proof that the defendant was duly notified of infringement, and continued the same after such notice.”

In Re Together Dev. Corp., 227 B.R. 439 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998). “However, no application to register a mark under section 1(b) [15 USCS § 1051(b)] shall be assignable prior to the filing of the verified statement of use under section 1(d) [15 USCS § 105(d)], except to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which…”

Nallapati v. Justh Holdings LLC (E.D.N.C. 2023). “15 U.S.C. § 105 1(a)(3)). “The oath is phrased in terms of a subjective belief, such that it is difficult .”

Hark'n Tech. v. Orange Whip Fitness X (D. Utah 2022). “Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction based on both federal question under 15 U.S.C. § 105 , § 1121(a), § 1338 and § 1338(b) and diversity under 28 U.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 105(d) — 1 case

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.