The patent “bargain” describes the exchange that takes place when an inventor receives a limited term of “protection from competitive exploitation” in exchange for bringing “new designs and technologies into the public domain through disclosure” for the benefit of all. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141, 150. As part […]
Blog
Software Licensing Services and Education-related Goods
To find a likelihood of confusion, the goods and services need not be identical or even competitive. Rather, the question is whether the goods and services are marketed in a manner that “could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the] goods emanate from the same source.” Coach Services Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 […]
Aesthetic Functionality in the Sixth Circuit
Trade dress pertains to the look of a product or its packaging, and may include features such as size, shape, color, or color combinations, texture, graphics, or even particular sales techniques. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 764 n.1 (1992); Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 280 […]
Server Test Lives on in Utah
Under the Ninth Circuit’s “server” test, if a party displayed a copyrighted image that it had stored on its own systems, then it had infringed; but if it displayed that image by merely linking or framing content from other websites, then it was not infringement. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d […]
No Confusion Between ELEVATE and ELEVATIONS for Credit Unions
In the Tenth Circuit, the following six factors are considered when determining the potential for confusion: the level of care likely to be exercised by purchasers, the strength or weakness of the senior mark, the degree of similarity between the marks, the intent of the alleged infringer in adopting its mark, the similarity of products […]