LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 1, 2023

VIP Products, on the other hand, argued that their toy was protected under the doctrine of “fair use” as it was being used in a non-trademark sense, and that it was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. Rogers , 875 F.2d ” Id. In VIP Products v. Jack Daniels Products , 953 F.3d

Trademark 52

Trademark Intellectual Property Branding Brands 52

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

JUNE 21, 2023

Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. She writes and teaches in the trademark law area, and recently wrote a paper with Professor Christine Haight Farley that focuses on speech-protective doctrines in trademark infringement law.] By Guest Blogger Lisa P. Ramsey [Lisa P.

Trademark 100

Trademark Blogging Trademark Law Fair Use 100

43(B)log

OCTOBER 4, 2021

For about a decade, courts had realized that IIC had gone way too far, and had expanded liability in ways that didn’t protect consumers and facilitated anticompetitive claims about false advertising. The court or appeals also commented that relying on IIC might change the available damages and relief—but how exactly?

IP 94

IP Trademark Advertising Advertising 94