News & Analysis as of

Lanham Act › Likelihood of Confusion › Corporate Counsel

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

Fourth Circuit Confirms: Physical Distance Does Not Avoid Trademark Confusion

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC on

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision confirming that using similar names for businesses in the same industry can result in a likelihood of confusion despite the physical distance of the entities. In...more

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Intellectual Property Law: Looking Forward to 2023

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on

With the continuing advancements of cutting-edge technologies — such as genome editing (CRISPR) and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) — U.S. courts will have a full docket of challenging IP cases throughout 2023. Below are some of...more

Sunstein LLP

The Long Arm of Trademark Law: Where do we draw the line?

Sunstein LLP on

Can a United States court really award tens of millions of dollars in damages for violation of US trademark law under the Lanham Act where the conduct at issue did not even take place in the United States? According to a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Eye Don’t: No Counterfeiting Without Likelihood of Confusion

McDermott Will & Emery on

Referring to the act of counterfeiting as “hard core” or “first degree” trademark infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the first time confirmed that the Lanham Act requires a likelihood of confusion...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Tea Rose, Swiss Cheese and Slam Dunk Evidence of Infringement – The 9th Circuit Weighs in on Remote Geographic Trademark Users

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

When two different companies adopt confusingly similar trademarks and use them in different parts of the United States, complications ensue. The adjudication of the respective rights of the parties will depend on the...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Nominative Fair Use of a Trademark: The Second Circuit Weighs In

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

If a defendant in a trademark case uses the plaintiff’s trademark, not to identify the defendant’s own products, but rather to refer accurately to the plaintiff’s products, is that trademark infringement? Called “nominative...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

Supreme Court Denies Review of Ninth Circuit Decision Finding no Trademark Infringement for Amazon Search Results

Proskauer Rose LLP on

On February 29, 2016, the Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision holding that there was no likelihood of confusion, and therefore no trademark infringement, where Amazon.com responded to consumer searches...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Second Circuit Clarifies the Use of Legal Presumptions of Consumer Confusion and Injury in Certain Lanham Act Cases

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On Tuesday, July 29, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “clarified certain aspects of [its] false advertising jurisprudence” and held that, where literal falsity and deliberate deception have been...more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide