Search for: "People in Interest of TM"
Results 61 - 80
of 509
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
Heald: Harvard’s TM counsel—not afraid of people’s perception of licensing. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 4:59 pm
Could learn to facilitate simple cases more cheaply; most people who have legit defenses can’t afford to assert them in court. [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 2:16 pm
Most people are probably also aware that it contains the usual annual appropriations for things like the promotion of women’s interests. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm
Disconcerting that people don’t always recognize “paid ad” as ad, but that’s how people are—they don’t look at labels.McKenna: consistent w/TM surveys! [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 12:21 pm
Initial interest confusion. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 11:37 am
A lot of people he talks to in IP are talking about that with excitement. [read post]
9 Dec 2006, 4:41 pm
These rights initially required uniqueness/singularity of the mark - no longer true under the new theory, as long as the mark is well-known to the public.Benelux law: 1970 law created general tort claim for using the TM in a way which damages the interests of the TM proprietor; no confusion required. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 10:58 am
There was no evidence showing that Belmora’s products had harmed anyone, or that people had made misdirected payments. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 1:31 pm
Genericide occurs when people talk back. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 8:49 am
Defense bar/more connections with people fighting = huge difference. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 8:11 am
Specimen carefully uses that term on the tag, but clearly interested in enforcing against people who are using it on the front of a shirt, despite PTO rule against registering ornamental uses. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 10:12 am
Neglects interests of nonconfused consumers. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 12:51 pm
Charles Colman, Trademark Law and the Prickly Ambivalence of Post-Parodies: The way that people play with trademarks that companies have deliberately infused with atmospherics, per Jessica Litman, and to which people have predictable emotional responses. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 12:44 pm
Trademark is not about the First Amendment and … people's ability to speak. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 1:21 pm
One way: narrow TM liability w/r/t sponsorship/affiliation confusion; post-sale and initial interest confusion. [read post]
20 May 2016, 8:40 am
McGeveran: lumping TM and advertising together is itself a very interesting and meaningful choice. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
Static Controls in 2012, a Lanham Act false advertising case, the Court gave us two more principles for interpreting section 43: a statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose interests “fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. [read post]
17 Feb 2007, 11:29 am
Tarnishment is not content-neutral, since the purpose is to allow the TM owner to prevent criticism and control how people feel about the mark (ultimately, this is also true of blurring, which can also dull the golden glow of a strong mark). [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 10:03 am
Gordon: TM law is a form of speech regulation with a property label, which makes it hard to call for recognition of the P’s interest. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 2:50 pm
TM law says that if people think both would produce, then they’re in the same market. [read post]
