Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
    • Articles
  • Law Firms
    • Law Firms
  • Organizations
    • Organizations
    • TRADEMARK—E.D. La.: Court finds unauthorized use of ‘A+PEL’ logo but awards no damages
    • PATENT—D. Del.: Zoom fails to move seven-patent infringement dispute with Ricoh to California
      • You have 1 more complimentary views available this month. Log in if you are already a customer
    • TRADE SECRETS—Cal. App.: Appellate court affirms dismissal of trade secret, contract claims in crypto-mining venture dispute
      • You have 1 more complimentary views available this month. Log in if you are already a customer
    • TRADE SECRETS—Mass. Sup. Ct.: Establishing trade secret misappropriation does not create a presumption of irreparable harm
      • You have 1 more complimentary views available this month. Log in if you are already a customer
    • TRADE SECRETS—W.D. Wash.: Court found basic logistics, product development practices, not trade secrets
      • You have 1 more complimentary views available this month. Log in if you are already a customer
    • TRADEMARK—S.D. Ohio: Court grants temporary restraining order on attempts to remove heart-related app from Google, Apple stores
      • You have 1 more complimentary views available this month. Log in if you are already a customer
  • Articles
    • Articles
  • Law Firms
    • Law Firms
  • Organizations
    • Organizations

    IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Ohio: Court grants temporary restraining order on attempts to remove heart-related app from Google, Apple stores, (Oct 19, 2026)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Bricker Graydon LLP | Seed IP Law Group LLP
    Organizations Mentioned:HeartFitt LLC | HeartHero, Inc.

    By Joe Cox, J.D.

    The court found that as the opponent of the restraining order was not engaged in commerce in the United States, there was little risk of harm to it, and the equities favored a temporary restraining order.

    An Ohio district court judge granted a restrai ...

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use