Add to ORKGThis comment asserts that federal courts do not decide the likelihood of confusion issue by using these theories. Instead, the typical likelihood of confusion dispute is decided by giving actual confusion more weight than other analytical elements, despite courts\u27 claims that they give the elements equal weight and consideration
The law of patent claim interpretation articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fed...
This piece argues that the Supreme Court\u27s April 2014 decision in Navarette v. Calfornia, like la...
Legal theorists, judges, and legal writing instructors persistently decry the assertions of certaint...
This comment asserts that federal courts do not decide the likelihood of confusion issue by using th...
A stark circuit split mars the consistency of trademark infringement analyses within U.S. Circuit Co...
This comment addresses the concept of initial interest confusion in trade dress law and examines sev...
The U.S. circuit courts disagree on whether the likelihood of confusion determination in trademark l...
Our federal courts have introduced a degree of uncertainty in the law of pleading that ought to be r...
The United States Supreme Court, in the companion cases Victor v. Nebraska and Sandoval v. Californi...
This article seeks to provide an overall discussion of the role of actual confusion evidence in fede...
The crucial question for many legal disputes is “what happened,”? and there is often no easy answer....
The uncertainty of empirical assertions is a pervasive problem in litigation before the EU Court of ...
Judicial review of agency statutory interpretations depends heavily on the linguistic concept of amb...
The Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws has the irony of dominating the field while bewildering i...
There has been a historical availability of new trials based on newly discovered evidence in the Uni...
The law of patent claim interpretation articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fed...
This piece argues that the Supreme Court\u27s April 2014 decision in Navarette v. Calfornia, like la...
Legal theorists, judges, and legal writing instructors persistently decry the assertions of certaint...
This comment asserts that federal courts do not decide the likelihood of confusion issue by using th...
A stark circuit split mars the consistency of trademark infringement analyses within U.S. Circuit Co...
This comment addresses the concept of initial interest confusion in trade dress law and examines sev...
The U.S. circuit courts disagree on whether the likelihood of confusion determination in trademark l...
Our federal courts have introduced a degree of uncertainty in the law of pleading that ought to be r...
The United States Supreme Court, in the companion cases Victor v. Nebraska and Sandoval v. Californi...
This article seeks to provide an overall discussion of the role of actual confusion evidence in fede...
The crucial question for many legal disputes is “what happened,”? and there is often no easy answer....
The uncertainty of empirical assertions is a pervasive problem in litigation before the EU Court of ...
Judicial review of agency statutory interpretations depends heavily on the linguistic concept of amb...
The Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws has the irony of dominating the field while bewildering i...
There has been a historical availability of new trials based on newly discovered evidence in the Uni...
The law of patent claim interpretation articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fed...
This piece argues that the Supreme Court\u27s April 2014 decision in Navarette v. Calfornia, like la...
Legal theorists, judges, and legal writing instructors persistently decry the assertions of certaint...