Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 101 - 120
of 688
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2020, 3:38 am
Under Lexmark, the Board must assess "whether the party demonstrated (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the statute and (ii) proximate causation. [read post]
24 Nov 2020, 6:54 am
Lexmark International Inc. re. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 1:59 pm
Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128 n.4. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 10:58 am
Sadly, Lexmark's aggressive legal culture came along with its other assets, and within a year of the acquisition, Lexmark's lawyers were advancing a radical theory of patent law to fight companies that refilled its toner cartridges. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 1:29 pm
Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128 n.4. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 12:30 pm
The court joins the overwhelming weight of authority that Lexmark modified the classic Gordon & Breach test, which has been adopted by the Fifth Circuit but not yet readdressed by that circuit post-Lexmark. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 7:29 am
" Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 129. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 8:46 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2020, 2:21 am
Lexmark, 387 F.3d at 534. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 10:29 am
” Direct competition isn’t required, but a bare assertion of overlapping commercial interests wasn’t enough under Lexmark. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 12:23 pm
’” Rather than explicitly arguing Dastar and First Amendment/nominative fair use, defendants argued that the NRA hadn’t alleged Lexmark standing or identified any false or misleading content on AMc’s website. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 12:56 pm
Under Lexmark, “a plaintiff in a false-advertising case must demonstrate injury by way of lost sales or damage to business reputation. [read post]
10 Sep 2020, 3:34 am
., Opposition No. 91232361 (September 8, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jyll Taylor).Standing: In view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lexmark, the Board no longer uses the rubric "standing" when analyzing the requirements of Section 13 and 14 of the Trademark Act, but whether a party has established entitlement to a statutory cause of action by demonstrating a real interest in the proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage. [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 7:50 am
They argued that the court erred by, effectively, holding that the claims couldn’t proceed because plaintiffs weren’t in the strip club business, in defiance of Lexmark. [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 12:28 pm
Under Lexmark, the answer was yes: Northern alleged “an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales” and proximate causation in that customers switched. [read post]
13 May 2020, 1:18 pm
Id. at1235 (citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
4 May 2020, 10:39 am
The court of appeals affirmed on false advertising over a dissent, affirmed on trade dress claims, and reversed and remanded on trade secret/related claims.One of the big post-Lexmarkquestions was: while Lexmark made clear that disparagement was actionable, would the standard it articulated for harm make it harder for non-dominant firms to challenge competitors’ false, but nondisparaging, claims about themselves? [read post]
17 Apr 2020, 1:35 pm
Mar. 30, 2020)But I was told that after Lexmark and Chamberlain, manufacturers weren’t using §1201 claims to control devices! [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 10:00 am
Lexmark International Inc. held that a legal sale exhausted the patentee’s rights in that item. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 1:44 pm
Of course, the reason the statements in Lexmark might still not have been commercial advertising or promotion was that they were made to Lexmark’s competitors, which is still a problem under prong (3)—it’s not super plausible that they were designed to directly generate sales of Lexmark’s products, though they could have decreased the supply of competing products indirectly. [read post]
