Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page, 880 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989), is a case that was tried in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which dealt with the issue of whether a plaintiff's telephone number, which translates into a generic term, is entitled to judicial protection when a second comer tries to use a confusingly similar number.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Anthony Page (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page, 880 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989), is a case that was tried in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which dealt with the issue of whether a plaintiff's telephone number, which translates into a generic term, is entitled to judicial protection when a second comer tries to use a confusingly similar number. (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
Prior
| - Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (en)
|
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| |
citations
| |
court
| |
courtlistener
| |
CourtSeal
| - Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg (en)
|
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - "Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corporation v. Anthony Page, dba Easy Associates, Page Industries, and Easy Bed, and Easy Bed, Incorporated" (en)
|
Holding
| - Although one company’s use of a generic term does not preclude competitors to use the term for their own business purposes, it does not mean competitors may use the term to deceive the public with a confusingly similar use of that term. (en)
|
judges
| |
justia
| |
Litigants
| - "Dial-A-Mattress Franchise v. Anthony Page" (en)
|
has abstract
| - Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page, 880 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989), is a case that was tried in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which dealt with the issue of whether a plaintiff's telephone number, which translates into a generic term, is entitled to judicial protection when a second comer tries to use a confusingly similar number. (en)
|
googlescholar
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |