Search for: "People v. Lanham"
Results 721 - 740
of 786
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2009, 3:05 pm
Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in AMF Incorporated v. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 6:30 am
To finally “have the flat washboard abs and the sexy v-shape [they’ve] always wanted”? [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 3:11 pm
In the Second Circuit, which includes New York, the factors for the test for confusion is that as laid down in the Polaroid Corp v Polarad Elecs. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 2:13 pm
Scott v. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 9:06 am
In Brown v. [read post]
6 May 2006, 5:32 pm
Bean v. [read post]
4 May 2015, 4:47 am
Grocery Manufacturers Assoc. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 12:38 pm
” Lanham Act 2(a): false association: ability to block other registrations, gives estate leg up in establishing priority. [read post]
9 Aug 2021, 2:38 pm
Cited: Collier v. [read post]
1 May 2018, 10:24 am
Google, CJ Products v. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 4:39 am
Preemption is a big deal: The feds have tried to preempt state regulation of financial markets, as in Watters v. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 10:03 am
Q3: What year was the Lanham Act enacted? [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 8:52 am
Congress basically got the Lanham Act right, but over the years courts progressively made it worse. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 9:30 am
(Young v. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 10:10 am
Mark McKenna: The issue is people who conclude that making you think harder in any way is a search cost. [read post]
20 Jun 2010, 9:17 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 9:21 am
Beebe: search costs v. information costs—what is the distinction between those? [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 10:04 am
Koch v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 5:15 am
In particular, ACT lodged claims for `trade libel/commercial disparagement’; violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S. [read post]
10 Sep 2021, 7:33 am
” (Note that the second—what’s material to consumers—is a matter of consumer reaction, but one that people in the industry might be particularly able to know in general.) [read post]
