Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 61 - 80
of 686
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Dec 2021, 11:35 am
Dec. 12, 2021) After Lexmark, can a competitor bring a false association claim when the false association is with an unrelated third party? [read post]
21 Dec 2021, 1:08 pm
Sept. 17, 2021) Lexmark’s “commercial interest” standing requirement gives, and its proximate cause requirement takes away. [read post]
8 Nov 2021, 5:17 am
" The Board observed that Lexmark provides the applicable standard for determining whether a party is entitled to bring a statutory cause of action. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 1:08 pm
First, did Walkowicz allege a protectable commercial interest under Lexmark? [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 10:58 am
My presentation, galloping across a bunch of developments. [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 7:15 am
Lanham Act claim: Lexmark standing existed, but deception wasn’t plausibly pled. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 7:24 am
” (Citing pre-Lexmark precedent, but probably fine especially in situations like this.) [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 10:59 am
Proactive, which licensed the trademarks from the other plaintiff, did not have standing under §32 (which presumably also affects the counterfeiting claims), but did have standing under §43(a), applying Lexmark. [read post]
27 Aug 2021, 9:08 am
But Lexmark teaches that direct sales diversion isn’t the only cognizable injury. [read post]
25 Aug 2021, 8:55 am
” After Lexmark, the test seems to be: “(1) commercial speech, (2) for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendant’s goods or services, and (3) that is sufficiently disseminated to the relevant purchasing public. [read post]
25 Aug 2021, 6:30 am
But that, of course, would involve the exercise of discretion and prudence, two words that Lexmark (2004) sought to banish from the judicial lexicon. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 10:25 am
” Was TL allowed to sue under Lexmark? [read post]
20 Aug 2021, 10:21 am
[This is, as the Lexmark court recognized, playing with the concept of directness; proximate cause really does better as an explanation because it’s more honest about being a legal judgment and not some ontological step-counting exercise.] [read post]
20 Aug 2021, 10:10 am
RM argued that it wasn’t in competition with Lexmark, but most of the cases it cited preceded Lexmark, which removed any competition requirement, and the others failed to grapple with Lexmark. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 11:21 am
Lexmark has crept into §43(a)(1)(A) via false endorsement; it will be interesting to see whether courts recognize that other trademark claims are likewise subject to a proximate cause requirement by that logic. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 11:52 am
” Do Lexmark’s zone of interests and proximate cause requirement apply to false endorsement? [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 11:51 am
True, the plaintiff in Lexmark sold to customers too, but it was allegedly 100% or nearly of the market, which doesn’t seem to be the case here. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 6:30 am
For the Balkinization Symposium on James E. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 3:43 am
On the TTAB side, there's a rare Section 14(3) misrepresentation of source decision (THUMS UP and LIMCA), an interesting twist on the application of Lexmark (ADVENTIST), a dilution decision (Coca-Cola), a half-dozen failure-to-function rulings (e.g., GOD BLESS THE USA), and a new surname case (tapio).Read comments and post your comment here. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 3:43 am
" As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held, “neither § 14(3) nor Lexmark mandate that the plaintiff have used the challenged mark in United States commerce as a condition precedent to its claim. [read post]
