However, the Plaintiff couldn’t prove that they have an exclusive assignment rightwhich directly means that there is a lack of standing in this claim as well. In simple terms, in order to avail state dilution under the Act, the Plaintiff needs to have all the ownership right transferred to their name. Section 1125(c) of the Act only allows the owner of the mark to be entitled to the injunction against another person.
Based on the contractual terms and the actions of the plaintiff in controlling the quality of the trademark by themselves, not granting an exclusive assignment but just the license to use and owing the goodwill of the trademark indicates that it was not an exclusive assignment of the trademark.įollowing counterfeit and infringement claims, the claim of trademark dilution with respect to section 360-l of the NYGBL awaited to be dealt with. The whole contention of the Plaintiffs was that since the beginning, the plaintiffs have been saying that this is an exclusive assignment of the trademark since the time they have filed the claim. One of the grounds of the case was that the Plaintiff has given an exclusive trademark license assignment to the Defendants. According to the Lanham Act, on the owner himself, their legal representative, predecessors and successors can rightfully sue for any infringement. Sun was the rightful owner of the title of CONG BAN LV Mark. The sole answer for this issue was – no, the Plaintiffs did not hold standing in this case because they were not the registrants of the trademark. The foremost issue was whether the Plaintiffs lacked standing in the trademark counterfeit and infringement claims that arose under section 1114(1) of the Lanham Act. for the trademark and trade dress CONG BAN LV at the United States District Court Eastern District Of New York, which the ptradlaintiff alleged that the defendants infringed and used a similar and deceptive mark to confuse the customers and disrupt the business of the plaintiff, all the while maintaining that the infringer is someone else and that the defendants are investigating on the plaintiff’s behalf.
The plaintiff filed the claims for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition and deceptive practices against the Defendants, May Flower Int’s Inc. The Plaintiff is Shandong Sinho, a Limited Liability company organized under the laws of China, dealing in speciality Chinese foods such as bean curd and soybean paste.
0 kommentar(er)
