FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W255925022> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W255925022 startingPage "1691" @default.
• W255925022 abstract "INTRODUCTION In 2002, Lexmark International, Inc., a manufacturer and seller of laser printers, sued Static Control Components, Inc., which for years has manufactured and sold components necessary to remanufacture Lexmark ['s] [toner] (1) Lexmark installs microchips, identifiable by printers, its toner cartridges. In order to prevent third parties from remanufacturing and reselling the cartridges, Lexmark began to place each of its discounted cartridges a microchip that would disable the cartridge once it runs out of toner. Static Control effectively thwarted this effort by develop[ing] a microchip that could replace the microchip on the Prebate toner cartridges, permitting a third party to remanufacture and sell the toner cartridge again. (2) When Lexmark sued Static Control for violations of copyright laws and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Static Control filed counterclaims for false advertising and violation of antitrust law. (3) When the Supreme Court issued an opinion this case twelve years later, it did not address the merits of any of these claims. (4) Instead, the sole issue for the Court to decide was whether Static Control was authorized to sue Lexmark for false advertising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. (5) The Court decided that Static Control could indeed sue. (6) In reaching that conclusion, the Court decided an issue over which the federal courts of appeals had previously been split--namely, the standard by which courts should judge whether a plaintiff has standing to sue under section 43(a). (7) Although the Court's decision Lexmark has resolved the debate over the issue of standing for false advertising claims, it remains unclear whether the Court's holding also extends to trademark infringement suits brought under section 43(a). The Court did not explicitly address this question its opinion, and district courts thus far have differed their interpretations of the decision's scope. This Note addresses that ambiguity and aims to resolve it. It examines relevant statutory language, case law, and scholarly criticism, and ultimately contends that the standard articulated Lexmark should apply to both types of claims. Part I provides background regarding the history of the Lanham Act, looking particularly at the ways which courts have treated trademarks and false advertising differently. Part II discusses the Lexmark decision and the recent district court cases that have addressed its holding. Part III examines the text of both the Lanham Act and the Supreme Court's opinion Lexmark order to determine the decision's scope, and concludes that Lexmark's holding applies equally to false advertising and trademark claims. Finally, Part IV, which divided into two subsections, advances policy-based arguments for such a uniform application of the Lexmark standard. Generally, Part IV discusses the expansive nature of modern trademark law and explores the ways which Lexmark's standing requirement might serve as a narrowing force. First, Section IV.A laments the lack of a materiality requirement trademark law and demonstrates how Lexmark's proximate cause requirement might make up for that absence. Section IV.B focuses specifically on one area of application trademark law--the initial interest doctrine--and suggests that Lexmark, if properly applied, could possibly eliminate this doctrine. I. BACKGROUND Enacted 1946, the Lanham Act provides federal protection against unfair competition. (8) Section 43(a) of the Act establishes private causes of action against trademark infringement and false advertising. (9) Section 43(a) (1) (A) provides a remedy for trademark infringement against behavior that is likely to cause confusion as to the origin of goods or services, while section 43(a)(1)(B) protects against false advertising by prohibiting misrepresentations in commercial advertising or promotion about either one's own goods or services or another person's goods or services. …" @default.
• W255925022 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W255925022 creator A5036714710 @default.
• W255925022 date "2015-03-01" @default.
• W255925022 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W255925022 title "Determining Trademark Standing in the Wake of Lexmark" @default.
• W255925022 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W255925022 type Work @default.
• W255925022 sameAs 255925022 @default.
• W255925022 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W255925022 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W255925022 hasAuthorship W255925022A5036714710 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C2775924081 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C2777582869 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C2779027411 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C2780639879 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C2780851531 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C2987650672 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C34381374 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W255925022 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C127413603 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C144133560 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C162324750 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C17744445 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C187736073 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C199539241 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C2775924081 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C2777582869 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C2778272461 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C2779027411 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C2780639879 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C2780851531 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C2987650672 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C34381374 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C34974158 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C78519656 @default.
• W255925022 hasConceptScore W255925022C97460637 @default.
• W255925022 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W255925022 hasLocation W2559250221 @default.
• W255925022 hasOpenAccess W255925022 @default.
• W255925022 hasPrimaryLocation W2559250221 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W115991969 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W1481027608 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W1484800919 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W1498064512 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W1515184441 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W1840187090 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W2291077404 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W2321257423 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W2515969453 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W2599706725 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W2623285002 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W264869276 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W2979954077 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W3034647435 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W303902026 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W3124016434 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W3125545397 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W816612428 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W824323468 @default.
• W255925022 hasRelatedWork W857809985 @default.
• W255925022 hasVolume "90" @default.
• W255925022 isParatext "false" @default.
• W255925022 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W255925022 magId "255925022" @default.
• W255925022 workType "article" @default.