Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 21 - 40
of 688
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Sep 2023, 9:01 am
Section 43(a) reaches more broadly; the court here applies Lexmark to both false advertising and trademark claims. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 10:53 am
” Allen is definitely not out of the woods, because §43(a)(1)(A) is still available, but that should matter to the burden Toyota USA faces, including the Court’s language in Lexmark about proof of harm, which is not limited to false advertising. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default? [read post]
The Precedential Decisions of the CAFC and the TTAB on Registrability Issues: July 2022 to June 2023
25 Jul 2023, 3:49 am
The Board ruled that an ordinary consumer lacks “standing” to oppose because she or he cannot satisfy the Lexmark test. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:33 am
See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:00 am
So, did Industria satisfy Lexmark? [read post]
22 May 2023, 11:55 am
Souza v. [read post]
16 May 2023, 1:51 pm
Citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
16 May 2023, 1:51 pm
Citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2023, 7:10 am
Lexmark, 109 USPQ2d at 2069. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 4:23 am
Texas Denies Motion to Stay Infringement Action in Favor of TTAB Proceeding Precedential No. 38: TTAB Orders Cancellation of COHIBA Registrations Under Pan American Convention, Rejects Issue Preclusion Defense Entitlement to a Statutory Cause of Action: Precedential No. 4: Foreign Cancellation Petitioner Fails to Meet Lexmark Test for "Standing" But TTAB Allows Time to Amend Petition TTAB Tosses Out "BURNERWATER" Opposition Due to Failure to Plead and Prove… [read post]
17 Feb 2023, 6:31 am
Lexmark International, the top U.S. court held that post-sale restrictions may be enforceable under contract law but do nothing to avoid patent exhaustion. [read post]
27 Jan 2023, 4:06 am
The Board looked to Section 45 of the Trademark Act, which (according to the Supreme Court in Lexmark) includes an "unusual, and extraordinarily helpful detailed statement of the statute's purpose" and which identifies the interests protected through the regulation of "commerce within the control of Congress. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 7:29 am
” Vital’s argument that Ancient’s favorable placement in retailers was the result of deception, which prime placement then itself drove sales because consumers associate better shelf placement with a superior product, would likely not have been enough to provide standing under Lexmark. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 3:07 pm
This week, we have a jam-packed episode featuring five of our colleagues from a 2022 American Association of Law Libraries panel on APIs. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 11:11 am
[This seems to directly conflict with Lexmark, which points out that false advertising always involves a consumer deciding to act differently because of [allegedly false] information and that this decision can’t therefore remove proximate cause.] [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 5:38 am
Nov. 18, 2022) Lexmark provides standing to a purchaser because the harms it alleged are “commercial” harms. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 9:37 am
” Both types of claims flunked Lexmark’s proximate cause requirement, and the court commented that the claim against NSF also didn’t fall within the Lanham Act’s zone of interest; NSF was essentially a supplier of services and Geomatrix most analogous to a customer, who lacks Lanham Act standing. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 9:35 am
” Under Lexmark, NABP failed to allege a cognizable Lanham Act injury. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 8:48 am
See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 6:34 am
Under Lexmark International, Inc. v. [read post]
