Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 81 - 100
of 688
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2021, 3:43 am
On the TTAB side, there's a rare Section 14(3) misrepresentation of source decision (THUMS UP and LIMCA), an interesting twist on the application of Lexmark (ADVENTIST), a dilution decision (Coca-Cola), a half-dozen failure-to-function rulings (e.g., GOD BLESS THE USA), and a new surname case (tapio).Read comments and post your comment here. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 3:43 am
" As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held, “neither § 14(3) nor Lexmark mandate that the plaintiff have used the challenged mark in United States commerce as a condition precedent to its claim. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 5:52 am
(citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2021, 1:40 pm
The petition particularly focuses on the Supreme Court’s Lexmark decision and the Federal Circuit’s two subsequent decisions of Lone Star and Schwendimann. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 2:57 am
Cir. 2020) (citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 8:53 am
Speakers will address SCOTUS’ Lexmark decision on “standing,” and the TTAB’s consideration as to whether a plaintiff is “entitled to bring a cause of action. [read post]
18 May 2021, 7:15 pm
Supreme Court asks three interesting questions: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in finding that Hollywood Vodka had standing under Lexmark and 15 U.S.C. [read post]
14 May 2021, 7:06 am
There’s some discussion of standing pursuant to Lexmark, if you’re into that sort of thing. [read post]
13 May 2021, 3:48 am
Speakers will address SCOTUS’ Lexmark decision on “standing,” and the TTAB’s consideration as to whether a plaintiff is “entitled to bring a cause of action. [read post]
7 May 2021, 12:45 pm
See Lexmark v. [read post]
15 Mar 2021, 7:27 am
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) erred by not applying the Supreme Court’s two-part Lexmark test in analyzing standing under 15 U.S.C. [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 12:45 pm
Reitz, 765 F.3d 601, 606–07 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 1:02 pm
(Twenty years ago, there were a handful of cases saying that claims like this—the D’s ad falsely connected it to a third party—asserted someone else’s rights and so the non-owner-plaintiff was not the right plaintiff, but that reasoning probably doesn’t survive Lexmark.) [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 10:15 am
” The omitted (2), everyone here agrees, is a competition requirement that was abrogated by Lexmark; one satisfies Lexmark by having a relevant commercial interest and showing proximate cause. [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 1:17 pm
The fact that DoorDash wasn’t a direct competitor didn’t matter after Lexmark. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 8:01 am
Lexmark International, Inc., 137 S. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 5:05 am
.'d: TTAB Affirms Failure-to-Function Refusal of PAST PRESENT FUTURE for T-shirtsPrecedential No. 37: ".SUCKS" gTLD Fails to Function as Service Mark, Says TTABPrecedential No. 36: TTAB Affirms Failure-to-Function Refusal of TEXAS LOVE for T-Shirts, Rejects Equal Protection ArgumentPrecedential No. 35: Bad Specimen of Use and Mere Descriptiveness Sink THERMAL MATRIX for Dental Appliance LinerDiscovery/Evidence/Procedure:Precedential No. 43: TTAB Dismisses Major League Soccer's… [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 4:09 am
The judge asserted that "[e]n banc action is necessary to maintain the uniformity our decisions and clarify the impact of Lexmark on those decisions. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 1:25 pm
” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 7:38 am
Cir. 2014) (following Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
