25 U.S.C. § 1125
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Richard Feiner & Co. v. H.R. Indus., Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
Richard Feiner & Co. v. H.R. Indus., Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “, (2) a trademark claim under the Lanham Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), and (3) unfaii’ competition claims under New York state law.”
Tropical Air Flying Servs., Inc. v. Carmen Feliciano De Melecio, 158 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.P.R. 2001). “§§ 15 and 26, Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1125 , and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.”
Duncan McIntosh Co. v. Newport Dunes Marina LLC, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2004). “Plaintiffs service marks “Newport Boat Show” and “Newport in the Water Boat Show” and any combination thereof involving the concept of the Newport Boat Show are protectable marks pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). These marks have acquired secondary meaning in the minds of the…”
Kuper Indus., LLC v. Reid, 89 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. Neb. 2015). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). The Court predicts no serious dispute of this element: defendants have used “The Pancake Guys” to advertise their competing pancake performance service.”
Maker's Mark Distillery, PBC v. Spalding Grp., Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2022). “Plaintiff also alleges trademark dilution under 25 U.S.C. § 1125 (c)(1). (DN 1). In 25 U.”
Ohio State Univ. v. Redbubble, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 3d 840 (S.D. Ohio 2019). “Unfair competition and passing off under 25 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) also requires "use in commerce.”
ThermoLife Int'l LLC v. MusclePharm Corp. (D. Ariz. 2020). “) Based on ThermoLife’s 2 “real and protectable interest in the market for dietary supplements,” and MusclePharm’s 3 use of VASO6 instead of ThermoLife ingredients in some of its dietary supplements, 4 ThermoLife brings claims of false advertising under the Lanham Act, 25 U.S.C.…”
Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Alimia Light (N.D. Cal. 2023). “2009) (citation omitted); see also 1525 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). The Lanham Act protects both 2 registered and unregistered marks.”
Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Alimia Light (N.D. Cal. 2023). “2009) (citation omitted); see also 1525 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). The Lanham Act 24 protects both registered and unregistered marks.”
Cirrus Aviation Servs., LLC v. Cirrus Design Corp. (D. Nev. 2023). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1); see AMF, Inc. v.”
The Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. R.I. Cranston Ent. Inc. (D.R.I. 2024). “895 million, stating that it was “reasonable in light of what a jury might reasonably award in compensation attributable to Defendants’ alleged conduct over many years, coupled with the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs a Court may reasonably award pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1125…”
Software Automation Holdings, LLC v. Ins. Toolkits, LLC (E.D.N.C. 2024). “§ 1836 , (4) misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of North Carolina law, (5) unfair competition in ' violation of 25 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), (6) copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.”
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.