Search for: "In Re Grynberg"
Results 1 - 20
of 54
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2016, 7:41 am
In In re Tam, the Federal Circuit... [read post]
13 Aug 2007, 6:19 am
If they're leaving the market or making substantial changes in the product, trademark owners can use the marks to deceive consumers, at least for a period of time. [read post]
20 Dec 2007, 9:28 am
As promised, you are welcome to read these Not Ready for Prime Time CAFA cases: Grynberg v. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 2:14 am
Grynberg v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 8:17 am
Straight from Jeremy Sheff:On behalf of myself and my co-authors (Steve Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Mike Grynberg, and Rebecca Tushnet), I am pleased to announce the immediate availability of Open-Source Property, a completely free casebook for the 1L Property Law course. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 12:54 am
Chapter 13, by Michael Grynberg, also deals with the average consumer in trade mark law and argues that she may be too easily confused. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 2:01 pm
Grynberg: Fewer cases involve that tension. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 10:01 am
Mark Lemley: Now he’s profoundly depressed, because if Grynberg’s descriptive claim is right, we’re screwed. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 2:48 am
Grynberg v. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 4:47 am
Dr Roman Grynberg, a Pacific authority on trade, says the reason is simple – many Pacific Islanders are poor “and these foods are cheap”. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 7:49 am
Commentators: Mike Grynberg and Mark Lemley Grynberg: Doctrine developed for certain situations may not make sense for other situations, including the relevance of strength. (1) Why does strength play such an important role in TM litigation? [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 4:31 pm
Grynberg v. [read post]
25 Jun 2022, 4:02 am
Mike Grynberg: Residual goodwill and consumer deception: the predominant concern is: people who really like X and are happy to see its return but are deceived about its quality. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:28 am
Grynberg: courts of appeals are much more comfortable with district courts making those kinds of calls than w/agencies. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 9:08 am
So too for rights in limping marks in the first place: association with a particular producer is not enough, it must be association that consumers use to identify the goods and services they wish to buy or avoid.Sarah Burstein: Agree re: mutilation/phantom marks: separate commercial impression required for just a part. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 3:02 pm
Not even clear what we’re pinning down in the questioning! [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 9:14 am
Grynberg: Fed. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 9:12 am
We’re not depriving the public of something useful. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 4:36 am
So even if we’re persuaded on TM use we have to think about the scope of that right. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 10:14 am
See this in Qualitex and a bit in Wal-Mart—if we’re wrong about distinctiveness, producers will usually have discrete symbols they can use instead to identify source. [read post]
