Definition False Advertising Marketing Trademark Law 
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. So by the time the court says “the parties are vying for users in the same ‘market,'” you know that the judge has lost the thread. ” So why wasn’t that dispositive?
43(B)log
NOVEMBER 8, 2023
I’m going to talk briefly about last term’s Jack Daniels case—a trademark infringement and dilution case—as well as Elster, argued last week, in which the Justices appeared inclined to reject a First Amendment challenge to the refusal to register the claimed mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for t-shirts. Trademark: In Jack Daniel’s v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JANUARY 8, 2024
The trademark owner argued that the customers may have been directed via initial interest confusion to the rival website. The court says there can’t be MULTIPLE instances of INITIAL interest confusion: By definition, initial interest confusion is “confusion that creates initial customer interest.” LoanStreet v.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
.” Clearly, the second part of that definition targets Amazon and other major marketplaces, such as eBay, Walmart Marketplace, and Etsy. The first part of the definition includes services with “publicly interactive features that allow for arranging the sale or purchase of goods.” Lack of State Preemption.
43(B)log
FEBRUARY 3, 2023
We can make things excludable through tech and law, making things that previously looked like public goods providable by private markets. Book project: how do we reconcile that with our intuitions about markets and distributive justice? A few say that you can’t use marketing messages other than what they approve.
43(B)log
FEBRUARY 16, 2024
Panel #2, TM, moderated by Vice Dean Felix Wu Jack Daniels says that use as a trademark is special: like copyright’s bête noire, confusion caused by trademark use is the central concern of trademark law. That doesn’t mean that 43(a) couldn’t go beyond classic trademark protection. Then, in Lexmark v.
43(B)log
OCTOBER 4, 2021
Another way to put it is that aesthetic functionality requires you to have an understanding of the definition of the market in which other clothing makers should be free to compete. Nor did he allege any lost business opportunities as the result of their presence on the market.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content