Search for: "Mark Harms"
Results 21 - 40
of 10,202
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2016, 3:15 am
Addressing the issue of whether a famous mark can be diluted by the identical mark of a much smaller company, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided that the district court rightly dismissed trademark infringement claims and cross-claims where neither party had been, or was likely to be, harmed by the other. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 4:45 am
Show Notes: Mark Swartz, Interminable pause: Government must address harm caused by extension to copyright term CFLA-CARL Submission on Copyright Term Extension CARL, Addressing the Impacts of Copyright Term Extension in Canada The Biblio File podcast, Michael Geist on the pathetic argument for extending copyright protection Credits: CTV News, Trudeau Accuses Poilievre of Spreading Misinformation The post The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 155: Mark Swartz on the Harm… [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 6:58 am
Patent trolls and their claimed harmful effects on innovation have become the subject of extensive (hysterical?) [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 10:19 am
Although the presumption of irreparable injury was gone in the Third Circuit, its logic “can, and does, inform” how the court exercises its equitable discretion: an owner’s loss of control over her mark creates the potential for damage to the product or brand’s reputation, a harm that is difficult to quantify. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 8:55 am
Mark A. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 8:20 am
“Religious Accommodation, the Establishment Clause, and Third-Party Harm”: Mark Storslee has posted this article online at SSRN (via William Baude). [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 12:28 am
This sexual implication of the trade mark harms Socialism morality and causes negative social influence. [read post]
7 Nov 2023, 8:37 am
How Does Marking the Close Work? [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 7:37 am
It offers no definition of harm, nor what constitutes risk of harm. [read post]
18 Feb 2007, 1:41 am
A major debate is under way as to the future of the "grave risk of harm defense" in Hague Convention international child abduction cases. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 10:27 pm
I have a brief comment on Mark McKenna's excellent new piece in the Iowa Law Review, Testing Modern Trademark Law's Theory of Harm, both available now at the law review's website. [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 11:30 pm
It is not required to demonstrate actual and present harm, but prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or detriment. [read post]
16 May 2018, 11:03 am
The marks and the products on which the marks are used can be, but need not be, identical. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 5:55 am
DoD will likely require more resources to fully implement the CHMR-AP, but the NDAA marks an important first step in what should be a collaborative process between DoD and Congress. [read post]
30 May 2007, 5:08 am
Harms ADP cited Johnstone as authority for the fact that trade mark use is required under s.10(3) in the UK, but the IPKat suspects that this was a throwaway comment by the House of Lords]Here, although the defendant may have been taking advantage of the BMW logo, it was not doing so in a way that was unfair. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 10:12 pm
See also Harms's notes here - page 12.It suggests that capacity needs to be built at CIPC (this is urgent - see also comment below, under "bad").The unclear:It seems to say that we should consider joining Madrid and perhaps also ARIPO but the comments on page 17 are unclear or nonsensical. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 8:49 am
All this rebutted any presumption of injury and of irreparable harm. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 5:50 am
As Lemley and McKenna write, “[t]he idea that a mark owner is harmed because a defendant interferes with its ability to expand operates on a presumption that the mark owner ought to have the right to expand without interference. [read post]
10 Jan 2021, 5:52 pm
MercExchange and creates a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm on a finding of trademark infringement, including in instances of cybersquatting; and, (b) It allows petitions to expunge or reexamine registered marks that are not or have never been used in commerce in connection with the goods and services listed in the registration. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 8:08 pm
In the decision, the Court acknowledged that it may have opened the door to a “‘new cottage industry’ of false marking litigation by plaintiffs who have not suffered any direct harm. [read post]
