Remove 2004 Remove Confidentiality Remove Settlement
article thumbnail

UKIPO tells TfL to mind GAP in partial trade mark refusal for bad faith

The IPKat

For its opposition grounds based on sections 3(6) and 5(4)(b) TMA, GAP relied on a confidential settlement agreement (the Agreement) entered into between TfL and GAP in 2004, which GAP alleged would be breached both by the filing of the Application and the use of the Mark.

article thumbnail

A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! ??–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In 2004, the Ninth Circuit eviscerated it (in the Rossi case) by requiring plaintiffs to show that senders subjectively believed their takedown notices were abusive. The Lenz case got a lot of press, but it ended with a confidential settlement. Diebold from 2004, which led to a $125k damages award.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Biosimilars 2020 Year in Review

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

No earlier than July 31, 2023 per settlement. No earlier than November 20, 2023 per settlement. . No earlier than June 30, 2023 per settlement. No earlier than September 30, 2023 per settlement. No earlier than July 1, 2023 per settlement. No earlier than January 31, 2023 per settlement. January 2021.

article thumbnail

Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court recounts the perennially problematic Brookfield case and how the 2004 Playboy v. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. OxBlue. * Want To Know Amazon’s Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit?

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2024

SpicyIP

The Rules supersede the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004, and have been created supplementing the 2023 amendment to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The notice has cited the recent amendments to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 as the reason to revise the 2014 guidelines.

IP 105