Kodak means Eastman Kodak Company.
Kodak has the meaning set forth in the preamble.
Kodak means Kodak Canada Inc.
Examples of Kodak in a sentence
The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: Eastman Kodak Company (7150); Creo Manufacturing America LLC (4412); Eastman Kodak International Capital Company, Inc.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Eastman Kodak Co. v.
Accordingly, where they are provided, it is to give investors the same financial data management uses with the belief that this information will assist the investment community in properly assessing the underlying performance of Kodak, its financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.
Kodak believes that these non-GAAP measures represent important internal measures of performance.
Customer will not use Kodak trademarks without previous authority in writing from Kodak, it being understood that nothing in the Agreement shall imply such authority.
More Definitions of Kodak
Kodak means the Eastxxx Xxxak Company, a New Jersey corporation.
Kodak or "IMAGELINK" is accorded to Buyer by reason of this Agreement. Buyer agrees not to use or attempt to register any trade dress, trade name, trademark or service xxxx confusingly similar to any trade dress, trade name, trademark, service xxxx, logo or identification of Seller. 9.17
Kodak filed a lawsuit for infringement of certain of the Khoyi Patents against Sun on February 11, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (the "Court"), Case No. 02-6074T(F) (hereinafter "the Action").
Kodak s Knowledge” means the actual knowledge, after due inquiry, of (a) Timothy M. Lynch, in his capacity as Vice President, Chief IP Officer and Deputy General Counsel of Kodak, and (b) for purposes of (i) the definition of “Patent Documents” and (ii) Section 4.1(e)(i) only, Raymond L. Owens, in his capacity as Chief Patent Counsel of Kodak.
Kodak has the meaning set forth in the Recitals.
Kodak. ' trademarks in its product names ("Kodak Marks"). E-VEND and the Company may not remove, alter, or otherwise modify or conceal any Kodak Marks on the Merchandise. E-VEND and the Company may not use the Kodak Marks on or in connection with any goods or services (including but not limited to promotional and merchandising items such as key chains, mugs and T-shirts) other than the Merchandise, except as preapproved in writing by the Xxxxxxx Kodak Company.
Kodak means the goods of the Kodak company wherever the goods were made. When you import Kodak film, the name "Kodak" still tells the truth that this is Kodak's film. No rational trade mark law would allow any other result. Interestingly, within days of the Silhouette decision, British Ministers were querying it (even though the United Kingdom Government had supported the ultimate result). The other case is more technical. The European Trade Mark Directive at many points refers to "similar goods", both when one has to obtain registration and in relation to infringement. One form of infringement is the use of the same or a similar mark for the same or similar goods. What is meant by similar goods? If you have a xxxxxx xxxx, Kodak is the paradigm, then if it was used for almost any goods, say socks, there is likely to be a confusion. It is a unique name. So are socks similar to film? And does the question of similarity of goods get involved with the degree of distinctiveness of the mark? I said no in a case called Treat. The Court of Justice has said yes in a case called Canon. Nowhere in the Court of Justice's reasoning is there any consideration of the fact that the distinctiveness of marks may vary with time, that by making the question of similarity of goods part of the overall question of confusion, it is introducing in to the system complex questions of fact at the registration stage and at the infringement stage, reducing cases to what might be called old fashioned passing off. I think the Court of Justice had overlooked the simple fact that the trade mark registration system is not the only system for preventing the public being deceived. Every country in Europe has a form of unfair competition; some go further than others, but they all extend to stopping deceptive conduct. There was no need for the Court of Justice to inject this massive uncertainty in to the trade mark system of Europe. If it had a better feeling for intellectual property, it would not have done so. Thus I see for the future a need to create a system of litigation in which international courts with a good degree of knowledge of intellectual property over all its aspects are able to apply a holistic approach to the solution to the problems. Those courts will have to be good enough to serve the industries which depend more and more on IP rights. I would like to conclude by saying how much I welcome Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxx'x initiative in supporting the Centre for Research into Intellectual...