TITLE

Brands that name-drop

AUTHOR(S)
Chahil, Ravinder
PUB. DATE
November 2003
SOURCE
Brand Strategy;Nov2003, Issue 177, p33
SOURCE TYPE
Trade Publication
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Presents an author's advice for traders to think carefully before referring to another brand's registered trademark with referrence to the court case between Gillette Co. and LA-Laboratories. British law which prohibits a registered trademark owner from enforcing their trademark; Facts of the case; Questions that should be asked before considering for a trademark referral.
ACCESSION #
11489944

 

Related Articles

  • Legal update. Abbott, Sarah; Aboulian, Lucy // Journal of Brand Management;Aug2005, Vol. 12 Issue 6, p475 

    Discusses the European Court of Justice's ruling in the case, The Gillette Co. and Gillette Group Finland Oy v. LA-Laboratories Ltd. Oy, which concerned LA-Laboratories' use of Gillette's registered trade marks, "Gillette" and "Sensor." Background on the case; Court's conclusion that the use of...

  • Corporate Responsibility in a Changing Legal Environment. Foote, Susan Bartlett // California Management Review;Spring84, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p217 

    The article discusses corporate responsibility in a changing legal environment. Factors for the expansion of regulatory laws are a growing public awareness of health and safety risks accompanied by a growing disapproval of those risks, public belief that enterprises are capable of preventing...

  • Enough is enough.  // Christianity Today;9/24/90, Vol. 34 Issue 13, p50 

    Reports on the response of the Procter & Gamble Company to charges that its trademark logo is a satanic symbol. Libel suit filed against James and Linda Newton who have publicly denounced the company.

  • Supervisor's stares. Lissy, William E. // Supervision;Mar94, Vol. 55 Issue 3, p21 

    Discusses the ruling on the case Lewis vs. Gillette Co. on racial harassment in the workplace. Charges made by the black employee against Gillette Co. under the Civil Rights Act; Race discrimination arbitration results.

  • P&G settlement a huge victory for derivatives. Allen, James C. // American Banker;5/13/1996, Vol. 161 Issue 91, p36 

    Reports that the United States derivatives industry, has benefited from the out-of-court settlement between Bankers Trust New York Corporation, and Procter and Gamble Company. Amount Procter agreed to pay Bankers Trust; How a court case would have affected the industry; What would be done with...

  • Derivative complaints.  // Newsweek;11/7/1994, Vol. 124 Issue 19, p82 

    Notes that Procter & Gamble became the second company to sue Bankers Trust Co. over a derivatives deal gone sour. Interest-rate swaps; How much P&G lost.

  • P&G sues Colgate.  // Crain's New York Business;12/09/96, Vol. 12 Issue 50, p50 

    Reports on a lawsuit which Procter & Gamble Company filed against Colgate-Palmolive Company, and its advertising agency, Young & Rubicam Incorporated. Copyrighting of a toothpaste advertisement.

  • The cookie war and how it crumbled.  // U.S. News & World Report;9/25/89, Vol. 107 Issue 12, p18 

    Reports that last week Nabisco, Keebler, and Frito-Lay agreed to pay $125 million to Procter & Gamble for patent infringements against their soft cookies. It was the largest publicly disclosed patent settlement ever. Details of the controversy.

  • P&G sues Blue Cross.  // Chemical Week;4/23/1997, Vol. 159 Issue 16, p20 

    Reports on Procter and Gamble company's lawsuit filed against Blue Cross Laboratories. Reason for the lawsuit.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics