Search for: "IN RE: MARK W. ROGERS"
Results 21 - 40
of 126
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2023, 9:40 am
Taking an all or nothing approach w/o considering consumers and competitors is bad. [read post]
6 Jun 2019, 9:02 am
”Because Ebony is a mark for an expressive work, the court didn’t use Rogers but did use the Polaroid factors with appropriate weight to the First Amendment interests at stake. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 4:11 am
Why would that endanger Rogers? [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 10:36 am
Information cosmopolitan: capable of interacting w/marks and other sources of information—possibility for multiple ways of constructing meaning. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 4:39 pm
Every time a court uses Rogers, it’s covertly holding that it would be unconstitutional to apply a broader set of rights; we’re tailoring the test with this in mind. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:34 am
Normally when we talk about consumer protection we’re concerned w/ a particular category of consumers regarded as vulnerable: lack the same level of info as businesses in the marketplace. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 4:36 am
Validity and infringement relationship: plaintiffs can play games about whether what they’re doing is use as a mark and what defendants are doing. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
But if Rogers survives, that’s what it does. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 7:08 am
In this year alone, W&L has hired four new internationalists to complement the well-respected international faculty who are already there (Mark Drumbl, Rick Kirgis). [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm
”[21] Under this test, Ginger Rogers and the estate of Fred Astaire could not prevent a filmmaker from using the title “Ginger and Fred” in a fictional film because the use was “clearly related to the content of the movie and is not a disguised advertisement for the sale of goods or services or a collateral commercial product. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 11:28 am
I’m also a fan of Rogers v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 10:03 am
But what’s wrong with that if they’re advertising falsely? [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 11:05 am
One approach uses Rogers for both, which makes sense since Rogers itself involved both claims. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
Developing consensus around expressive uses/use of marks in expressive works, a set of doctrines prominently associated with Rogers v. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 5:27 am
Under Rogers v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 10:59 am
If it’s the case that people are interacting w/businesses as if they’re people, that might provoke a lens of ways in which consumers are likely to be confused or not [or what counts as acceptable criticism, given the comparison to defamation]. [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
If you’re looking for further weekend reading, Roger Alford recommended Dean Berman’s new book on Global Legal Pluralism. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 4:10 pm
Incremental creativity of the type one might expect even in a competitive industry w/o ©? [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm
A brief review of the justifications usually given for the exclusions for marks that are scandalous or disparaging: (1) the harm done by the government endorsement represented by a registration; (2) the desire to withhold government resources from disparaging or scandalous terms; (3) the lack of any effect on a user’s ability or right to use the mark, with (a) possible §43(a) or state common law protection against confusing uses despite unregistrability, though… [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 1:21 pm
Less problem w/identifying a claimant to the mark, usually, b/c of public use requirement. [read post]
