ARTICLE
24 September 2015

In Third Circuit, All Confusion Is Relevant In Trademark Cases

SH
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP

Contributor

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP logo
Schnader is a full-service law firm of 160 attorneys with offices in Pennsylvania, New York, California, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Delaware and an affiliation with a law firm in Jakarta. We provide businesses, government entities, and nonprofit organizations throughout the world with innovative, practical, and cost-effective solutions to their business and litigation needs. We also provide wealth management and an array of personal legal services to individuals.
When evaluating a claim for trademark infringement or unfair competition under the Lanham Act, courts consider whether or not the use of the mark is likely to cause confusion.
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

When evaluating a claim for trademark infringement or unfair competition under the Lanham Act, courts consider whether or not the use of the mark is likely to cause confusion. However, courts seem to sometimes disagree on whose confusion is important, leading to questions about the purpose of the Lanham Act, and how such cases should be presented. Schnader attorneys Ronald Ventola II, W. Drew Kastner, Stephenie Yeung, and Andrew Chou examined these issues in " In Third Circuit, All Confusion Is Relevant in Trademark Cases" for the New Jersey Law Journal published on September 8, 2015.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More