Did you mean: vF Brands, Inc ?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moseley_v._V_Secret_Catalogue,_Inc.

Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court ... By 1998 the company spent $55 million in advertising its brand , operated 750 Victoria's Secret stores, ... PF Brands, Inc. , 191 F.3d 208 (2d Cir.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trademark_case_law

This list contains an alphabetical listing of historically significant or leading case law in the area of US trademark law. Contents: Top; 0–9; A; B; C; D; E; F; G; H; I; J ; K; L; M; N; O; P; Q; R; S; T; U; V; W; X; Y; Z. A[edit]. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. .... Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc. 191 F.3d 208 (2nd Cir. 1999); New Kids on the Block ...

law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/50/188/2332742

Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/1999%20Nabisco%20Abridged.pdf

Nabisco, Inc. and Nabisco Brands Company (collectively "Nabisco") appeal from ... District Judge) upon the motion of Pepperidge Farm, Inc. and PF Brands, Inc.

www.nytimes.com/1999/02/04/nyregion/nabisco-sees-red-herring-but-pepperidge-farm-wins-fish-suit.html

Feb 4, 1999 ... Federal Judge Shira A Scheindlin orders Nabisco Inc not to sell new ... on the Goldfish brand and that Pepperidge Farm's fish shape should not ...

repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=ripl

PF Brands, Inc.13 and TCPIP Holding Co. v. Haar Communications, Inc.14 The Second Circuit would clearly restrict application of the FTDA to trademarks that ...

www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2443/starbucks-corp-v-wolfes-borough-coffee-inc

Dec 3, 2009 ... Cf. Nabisco v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F.3d 208, 213, 218 (2d Cir.1999) (observing that Pepperidge Farm's famous "goldfish" mark may be ...

via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=law-review

(1927) (cited in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 429 (2003)). ..... PF. Brands, Inc.. 191 F.3d 208, 216 n.2 (2d Cir. 1999): TCPIP Holding Co. v.

www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/scitech/volume122/documents/simon_web_000.pdf

actual lost revenues constitutes the most obvious means of establishing dilution); see also. Nabisco, Inc., v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F.3d 208, 214, 227-28 (2nd Cir.