To understand how to protect trade dress rights, and why these rights are often forgotte.
Introduction The Internet has changed the way the world does business..
This article summarizes the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wal Mart Stores Inc. vs. Samara Bros. Inc., whereby the Court discussed the issue of product design trade dress.
Specifically in the context of restaurants, trade dress can include both the exterior and interior architecture of .
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide when a product's design is "inherently distinctive.
Has your business ever been sued, or threatened with suit, because your product allegedly looks too similar to another business product? You may be tempted to change your product's design, simply to avoid the cost of defending a lawsuit. But your business may be insured for this sort of claim.
This article reviews the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (Wal Mart, Inc. vs. Samara Brothers) whereby the Court raised the bar on proving a trade dress claim. The Court ruled that trade dress can never be inherently distinctive.
It is essential that clients and their lawyers consider functionality and its impact on trade dress claims prior to filing any utility patent application. Further, those seeking to protect a productÂs design as an indicator of origin must be extremely careful in either a patent prosecution or even marketing literature about making any claim about the design that relates to functionality.
Two recent cases deserve special attention for their use of alternative tests to determine whether trade dress con.
An important lesson to be learned by those conducting marketing research.
This article highlights the key U.S. Supreme Court Opinions decided during the 1999-2000 session.
This article reviews the recent US Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. whereby the Court discussed the issue of when a product's design is protected as an unregistered trade dress.
A significant portion of the patent bar was caught off-guard when the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over a case in which the plaintiff does not assert a patent claim.
On June 3, 2002, the Supreme Court issued one of its most important decisions in decades construing the "arising under" jurisdiction of United States District Courts. In Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., seven Justices of the Court held that a civil action is not one "arising under" federal law - including federal patent, trademark, and copyright law - if the well-pleaded complaint of the plaintiff does not allege a claim whose resolution depends on a substantial question of federal law.