CERTIORARI AS CODA: After Lexmark Rejects Multifactor Measures for Standing, Which Challengers Stand in the Zone of Interests for Lanham Act Remedies?, 25 Fed. Circuit B.J. 699 (2016) and SSRN 2807167.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Thomason
Keyword(s):  
Lanham Act

scholarly journals Trademarks: Extraterritorial Application of the Lanham Act

1957 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 887
Author(s):  
William R. Luney
Keyword(s):  
Lanham Act

US Supreme Court holds that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 826-829
Author(s):  
Charles R Macedo ◽  
Marion P Metelski ◽  
David P Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Lanham Act

scholarly journals The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
Social Commentary ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Lanham Act

Trademark law has expanded dramatically in the last fifty years, with anumber of trends combining to give trademark owners something they havenever had before -- protection of marks akin to the protection given realproperty. Professor Lemley evaluates these changes, and suggests that theyare not supported by the economic learning on the functions of trademarksand advertising. He argues that many of these legal developments areunwarranted, particularly the cases which give trademark owners power toprevent political and social commentary, or to own the trademark as a thingin itself.

Legal and Public Policy Implications for the Future of Comparative Advertising: A Look at U-Haul v. Jartran

1989 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caryn L. Beck-Dudley ◽  
Terrell G. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Comparative Advertising ◽  
The Public ◽  
Industry Regulation ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Private Action ◽  
Lanham Act ◽  
Legal Fees

This article investigates the regulatory environment for comparative advertising in terms of industry regulation, government regulatory agencies, and private court actions under state law and the federal Lanham Act. Major legal issues are trade disparagement and defamation, trademark infringement and dilution, and deception. The Lanham Act offers protection and redress for parties injured by false, misleading or unfair comparative advertising. Legal theory for application of Lanham to comparative advertising is detailed and implications of the U-Haul vs. Jartran case, where Lanham was applied with U-Haul's being awarded more than forty million dollars in damages and legal fees, are discussed. Several public policy issues are raised including whether the FTC's private action policy serves the public interest given legal risks and costs of defending law suits.

The Scandalous Record of Avoidable Errors in Expert Evidence Offered in FTC and Lanham Act Deceptiveness Cases

1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan L. Preston
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Professional Knowledge ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Deceptive Advertising ◽  
Lanham Act

A content analysis is reported on evidence introduced in deceptive advertising cases, evidence that is erroneous, meaning rejected as unable to establish the factual finding it was introduced to support. Further, this evidence is avoidably erroneous, meaning the invalidity and consequent rejection were predictable in advance on the basis of the professional knowledge of lawyers or researchers. The result is discussed as happening because of the nature of legal action and because of the interaction of lawyers and researchers. Implications of such avoidably erroneous evidence are discussed and suggestions are made for ways to eliminate them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document