15 U.S.C. § 1225
State laws as affected
This chapter shall not invalidate any provision of the laws of any State except insofar as there is a direct conflict between an express provision of this chapter and an express provision of State law which can not 1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Yelp Inc. v. Catron, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Yelp Inc. v. Catron, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “) 15 U.S.C. § 1225 (c)(1) entitles the owner of a famous mark to “an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring .”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1225 (d)(l)(B)(ii). The district court reviewed the factors listed in the statute and properly concluded that Doughney (I) had no intellectual property right in peta.”
Maria Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham Pc, 829 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2016). “2011) (explaining that by using “the indefinite article ‘a’ ” in the phrase “a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution,” Congress “indi-eate[d] that any number of unspecified, junior marks may be likely to dilute the senior mark” (emphasis added) (quoting…”
Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. Volswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Network Solutions, Inc., 238 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2001). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1225 (d)(l)(B)(ii). A court is not limited to considering these nine factors when determining the presence or absence of bad faith.”
Majorsky v. Douglas, 58 A.3d 1250 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012). “In Count I, Plaintiffs allege Defendants used the name “Paul Majorsky” in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1225 . Count II contends Defendants employed the name “Paul Majorsky” for their business interests contrary to the state statute prohibiting the Wrongful Use of…”
Am. Motors Sales Corp. v. NEW MOTOR VEH. BD., 69 Cal. App. 3d 983 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). “) The act does not however preempt state laws ( 15 U.S.C. § 1225 ). The Board (originally called the New Car Dealers Policy and Appeals Board) was established in 1967 to hear appeals of new car dealers regarding licensing by the Department of Motor Vehicles.”
Hoop Culture, Inc. v. Gap Inc., 648 F. App'x 981 (11th Cir. 2016). “The elements of Hoop Culture’s claim for false designation of origin, 15 U.S.C. § 1225 (a), are for purposes of this case the same as its claim for trademark infringement, 15 U.”
Omega S.A. v. Omega Eng'g, Inc., 396 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D. Conn. 2005). “Unfair Competition Claims In addition to its trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims, OSA has asserted a claim of unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1225 (a). OSA has also raised a state law claim of unfair competition under CUTPA.”
Rbc Nice Bearings, Inc. v. Peer Bearing Co., 676 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D. Conn. 2009). “(“Plaintiffs”), brought this case for injunctive relief and damages against Peer Bearing Company (“Defendant” or “Peer”), asserting trademark infringement, unfair competition, advertising injury, and palming off/passing off claims in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act…”
Mazda Motors of Am., Inc. v. Sw. Motors, Inc., 243 S.E.2d 793 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “15 U.S.C. § 1225 . In light of this tacit approval by Congress, several states have adopted similar statutes regulating automobile franchises.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gallo GMC Truck Sales, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 810 (D.N.J. 1989). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1225 . Clearly there is no such conflict between the ADDCA and the New Jersey Franchise Act.”
Black Diamond Land Mgmt. LLC v. Twin Pines Coal Inc., 707 F. App'x 576 (11th Cir. 2017). “Plaintiffs Lanham Act Claims Plaintiff first alleges a violation of the Lanham Act under 15 U.S.C. § 1225 (a). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have falsely represented that the allegedly stolen resources are owned by Defendants and that these statements deceived or confused…”
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.