Search for: "People v. Lanham" Results 101 - 120 of 784
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2007, 11:27 am
Most people are familiar with the application of federal laws in the United States such as the Lanham Act and the Copyright Act in relation to parallel market issues. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 3:33 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Varying vernaculars: How to fix the Lanham Act's weakness exposed by the Washington Redskins. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 3:33 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Varying vernaculars: How to fix the Lanham Act's weakness exposed by the Washington Redskins. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 10:32 am by Francisco Macías
   Lanham [Maryland]:  University Press of America Inc., 2008. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 9:38 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Farley: why not mention Lanham Act? [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 5:41 am by Rebecca Tushnet
HJI argued that the Lanham Act isn’t limited to profit-seeking activity, citing United We Stand America, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 8:43 am by Eric Goldman
He then worked to boost the posts’ visibility, including: the posts asked users to “follow [his] link and mark it as helpful so that the message is amplified and as many people are warned as possible. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 12:25 pm by Eric Goldman
Lanham Act False Advertising Frustratingly, the court doesn’t address whether Section 230 applies to Lanham Act false advertising cases. [read post]
9 Oct 2024, 11:53 am by Eric Goldman
The court says: “Lanham Act claimants typically present evidence of actual confusion through consumer surveys. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 9:17 am by Camilla Hrdy
There are several other places I would look for real regulation originating in the Lanham Act.False Advertising ProvisionFirst, the most obvious contender is Lanham Act 43(a)(1)(B)'s false advertising provision, which as Simon mentions, is the main way the Lanham Act polices false statements in commercial advertising or promotion. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 9:37 am
Accordingly, there is no likelihood of confusion and, thus, no Lanham Act violation. [read post]