The world has changed materially since the foundation of traditional trademark laws, according to which the purpose of a trademark was to serve as a differentiating source indicator, preventing source confusion in the marketplace. Traditionally, trademarks protected the public from likelihood of confusion, assisted in consumer decisions and reduced search costs. The need to award a special scope of protection to famous trademarks from use on non-competing goods was first discussed in Kodak in 1898, holding that the use of the word Kodak for a bicycle company does not mislead consumers but takes unfair advantage of reputation. However, the most significant point in the evolution of dilution, in its early stages, was the case of Odol decided in 1924, which was the first to acknowledge the need to protect the advertising power of trademarks from being diluted, even in the absence of a likelihood of confusion. This book will provide that dilution is a ‘sui generis’ brand remedy applicable to reputed trademarks in accordance to their aggregated inherent and acquired strength. The book will address the non-harmonised nature of dilution, which reflects a problem in an age of borderless trade and cyber commerce and emphasises the need to answer the question: To what extent should reputed trademarks be protected by dilution beyond the traditional trademark protection from likelihood of confusion? The book includes a proposal for an operative legal framework based on conclusions and distinctions derived from the comparison of dilution, as adopted and interpreted in different areas of the world, comparative case studies and comparison with neighbouring legal rights, such as Tort Law, Unfair Competition, Moral Rights, Equitable Rights, Publicity Rights and Unlawful Enrichment.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.