Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Lanham Act protects trademark holders against consumer confusion by providing a cause of action against the use of similar marks on similar products if that use creates a likelihood of confusion. The likelihood of confusion analysis is often focused on confusion at the time of purchase, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits permit mark holders to allege infringement based on presale, initial-interest confusion (whereas the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits do not).
Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit joined the majority of circuits in permitting recovery for initial-interest confusion in certain circumstances. Select Comfort Corp. v. Baxter, 996 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. filed, No. 21-212. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to review that decision and potentially resolve the circuit split on this issue.
The Lanham Act provides a cause of action against "[a]ny person who…uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device…false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion…as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person. 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.