About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through August 2018)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0506 and id is 1 raw text is: UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles C.A.8, 2017. Com. (a) quot. in sup. Reseller of envelopes sued supplier after it began selling envelopes directly to plaintiff s customers, alleging, among other things, that defendant committed unfair competition by plotting to steal plaintiff's customers. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant. Affirming, this court held that plaintiff failed to support its assertion of unfairness. The court pointed out that defendant had repeatedly refused to sign a non-compete agreement with plaintiff, and that, under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1, neither new entrants nor existing competitors were subject to liability for harm resulting solely from the fact of their participation in the marketplace. Tension Envelope Corporation v. JBM Envelope Company, 876 F.3d 1112, 1122. M.D.Pa.2017. Com. (g) quot. in disc. Employer sued former employee who started a competing business while she was still working for employer, alleging, among other things, that employee engaged in unfair competition by misleading others to believe that she was the proprietor of employer's business and that her competing business was operated by employer. This court granted employer partial summary judgment, holding that employee made several attempts to pass off her work as that of employers' in violation of state law. The court noted that, under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1, a primary purpose of the prohibition against unfair competition was to identify and redress business practices that hindered rather than promoted the efficient operation of the market. Mifflinburg Telegraph, Inc. v. Criswell, 277 F.Supp.3d 750, 803. CHAPTER 3. THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS TOPIC 1. SUBJECT MATTER OF TRADEMARK LAW § 13. Distinctiveness; Secondary Meaning S.D.Tex.2017. Com. (d) quot. in case quot. in sup. Companies that delivered, serviced, and removed on- site portable toilets, dumpster units, and restroom trailers brought an action against competitor, alleging trademark-infringement and trademark-dilution claims based on defendant's name, logo, and colors of its portable toilets. This court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff s mark was protectable and there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was confusion between the marks. The court quoted Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 13, Comment d, to explain that unless the symbol or design was striking, unusual, or otherwise likely to differentiate the products of a particular producer, the designation was not inherently distinctive; and the court reasoned that, here, plaintiff s mark was registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and was inherently distinctive. Texas Outhouse Inc. v. Fresh Can, LLC, 266 F.Supp.3d 928, 934. For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most