2011 Cease and Desist Marketing 
SpicyIP
SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
We are pleased to bring to you a guest post by Roshan Santhalia ruminating on the question of whether a cease-and-desist notice before instituting a trademark or copyright infringement suit should be issued or not. Hons) LLB from NALSAR, Hyderabad in 2011 and MSc from Oxford, UK in 2012. He completed his B.A.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JANUARY 25, 2024
4, 2011)) (emphasis in original). Bright Data claims that it was using its Facebook and Instagram accounts for marketing purposes and was never logged in to its accounts when scraping. precedent, could Meta just amend its terms, send another cease-and-desist, and revisit this, or does this case repudiate that whole line of precedent?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
DECEMBER 13, 2023
2011) (citing to ProCD in rejecting preemption in the context of a Desny claim). And to characterize zero-click online terms of use that are imposed by cease-and-desist letter as enforceable contracts is horrible policy and bad law. Guest Blog Post) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Zeidenberg.
43(B)log
AUGUST 18, 2021
During this period, defendants continued to grow and develop their inventory and marketed “Sturgis” and “Sturgis Motor Classic” rally products. SMRI ultimately sent one C&D in August 2006, and filed suit in June 2011. Since the jury made no relevant findings of fact, the court was free to make findings.
Intepat
MAY 28, 2024
Notably, Apple trademarked its store design in the United States in 2011. The logo, consisting of a stylized apple with a bite taken out of it, is instantly recognizable amongst the consumer base and needs no introductions amongst the market & trade channels. Acquired Distinctiveness: Over the years, Apple Inc.
SpicyIP
NOVEMBER 21, 2022
The court relied on the studies conducted by Lumen and “large volumes” of cease and desist complaints to prima facie establish that the App is a rogue website and deserves to be blocked as a whole. US Appeal’s court rejects Natco Pharma’s marketing partner Alvogen’s appeal in patent litigation related to cancer drug Imbruvica.
Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts
FEBRUARY 5, 2021
5] This represents a missed opportunity—and potentially a market inefficiency—for companies looking to enforce trade secrets that have been misappropriated abroad. the ITC can also issue cease and desist orders to prevent further sales of the accused products. What are the Benefits of Litigating at the ITC? 16, 2009). [11]
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
115 
Let's personalize your content