Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 1 - 20
of 685
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2024, 12:08 pm
This court has clarified, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lexmark International, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 9:36 am
Hetronic International, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 12:45 pm
Metroplex satisfied Lexmark by alleging that the parties compete directly for the same customers and Meta’s false or misleading statements were material to advertisement buyers. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 12:32 pm
The Eleventh Circuit has adopted Gordon & Breach’s test (probably as modified by Lexmark). [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
Source/origin and control over quality is the core of TM and has special relevance when trying to figure out what rights the plaintiff is claiming to own; sponsorship/affiliation is of lesser importance, albeit still relevant; sponsorship/affiliation might be better handled under 43, which could have stronger guardrails; consider Lexmark as a case about 43(a), which the Court says it is, and not about 43(a)(1)(B) only. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
Then, in Lexmark v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:48 am
Under Lexmark, “a plaintiff suing under [the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act] ordinarily must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant’s advertising,” which is usually accomplished by showing that the defendant’s “deception of consumers cause[d] them to withhold trade from the plaintiff. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:46 am
(The default raises its ugly head, since Lexmark would deal with the second issue). [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 11:11 am
” Causation: Under Lexmark, proximate cause can be alleged by “a supplier of a company’s direct competitor where the decreased demand caused by false advertising directly harms the supplier. [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 3:33 am
” In Lexmark, the Supreme Court pointed out that “[i]dentifying the interests protected by” the Trademark Act “requires no guesswork. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 5:08 am
Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion: Precedential No. 34: TTAB Dismisses Monster Energy's Section 2(d) Claim On Summary Judgment Due to DIssimilarity of Design Marks Precedential No. 29: After an Exhausting 2(d) Analysis, TTAB Finds HME (Stylized) Confusable with KME for Building Products Precedential No. 27: TTAB Renders Split Decision in Appeal From Section 2(d) Refusal of IMPACT for Various Healthcare Services Precedential No. 12: TTAB Hands Win to MLBPA and Aaron Judge In… [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 1:32 pm
The Philips defendants argued that there was no statutory Lanham Act standing because they weren’t even indirect competitors, but the court here found that Lexmark removed any requirement even of indirect competition (including by blessing lawsuits across the distribution chain, e.g. manufacturer v. dealer). [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 1:03 pm
What about Lexmark? [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 10:58 am
§43(a) false designation of origin/false advertising: Lexmark applied to both, and Reed failed to present evidence that she suffered an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendants’ misrepresentations. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 8:26 am
False advertising: No Lexmark standing for want of proximate cause. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 12:25 pm
Although the Ninth Circuit has held that statements about copyright licensing status are not actionable under the Lanham Act, it has referred with approval to the bad faith standard for patent-related claims, and the court here noted that Lexmark, a Supreme Court case, concerned false advertising claims based on accusations of infringement and expressed no concerns about that. [read post]
22 Sep 2023, 10:56 am
Though courts usually group competitor claims together under state and federal law, the court pointed out that Lexmark is a rule of construction for the federal statute. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 9:01 am
Section 43(a) reaches more broadly; the court here applies Lexmark to both false advertising and trademark claims. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 10:53 am
” Allen is definitely not out of the woods, because §43(a)(1)(A) is still available, but that should matter to the burden Toyota USA faces, including the Court’s language in Lexmark about proof of harm, which is not limited to false advertising. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default? [read post]
The Precedential Decisions of the CAFC and the TTAB on Registrability Issues: July 2022 to June 2023
25 Jul 2023, 3:49 am
The Board ruled that an ordinary consumer lacks “standing” to oppose because she or he cannot satisfy the Lexmark test. [read post]
