Search for: "In Re Grynberg"
Results 1 - 20
of 54
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm
If we’re lookin [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 4:39 pm
Session 2: Responding to Anachronisms Introduction: Mike Grynberg VIP may tell us a lot about what the potentials are. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 1:27 pm
Lemley: don’t assume we’re moving in the right direction. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 1:00 pm
§ 1332(a)(1). [2] 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]
24 Jun 2022, 9:03 am
So we’re close to having this doctrine but courts won’t yet take the final step. [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]
20 May 2022, 10:26 am
§ 1332(a)(1). [2] Grynberg v. [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]
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]
2 Mar 2020, 10:12 am
A degree of consumer stupidity we’re not prepared to tolerate. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 11:34 am
Would worry about Linux people using this proposed structure on Windows.Michael Grynberg, DePaul University College of LawLiving with the Merchandising RightHates it too, but it’s not going anywhere: protecting the mark as the most desirable feature of the product; source designation functions are either irrelevant or distinctly less important. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 6:22 am
Session 3: Defining Marks in Trademark Law vs. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 4:11 am
Grynberg: Tam oral argument, the focus was on source identification—he wrote about why disparaging terms are inherently less likely to identify source [though that gets us back to wholesale/retail].Burrell: In Brunetti: why was the court so desparate to get its hands on the 1A issues? [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 10:31 am
But one of the harms we’re interested in is an intangible that is very dynamic, consumer understanding, which means we want a second regime, tort-like. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 10:05 am
Digging a bit deeper in time, we have In re Right-On Co. [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]
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]
23 Mar 2017, 3:02 pm
Not even clear what we’re pinning down in the questioning! [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 10:31 am
One thing we might want to take into account is people’s views when they’re not consumers. [read post]
