Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the sale of products lacking a unique serial number applied by a brand owner for anticounterfeiting and quality control purposes constitutes trademark infringement under federal law. This is so even if the removal of the code does not cause physical damage to an otherwise genuine product and consumers are not aware that the code has been removed.
In Zino Davidoff SA v. CVS Corp., 2009 WL 1862462, No. 07-2872-CV (2d Cir. June 19, 2009), the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction against CVS Corp., barring defendant's sale of DAVIDOFF COOL WATER fragrances that lack the unique production code applied at the time of manufacture to the bottle and box of genuine fragrances. Zino Davidoff uses the code both to identify counterfeits and to control the quality of genuine fragrances. The Second Circuit agreed that the products from which the code had been removed were no longer subject to the brand owner's quality assurances, were materially different from genuine products, and thus the sale of these goods constitutes trademark infringement.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.