@sarahjeong @levendowski Under the old panavision v. toeppen std, you're probably right. But post-ACPA, more of an open question.
@levendowski I think there's a colorable argument for dilution and possibly trade dress infringement
-
-
-
@Lawgeek@levendowski I would have focused more on the colors / logos / etc. than on the domain name. But was the domain primarily at issue? -
@sarahjeong@levendowski How do you think it would come out under the Sleekcraft/Polaroid factors? -
@Lawgeek@levendowski I know you didn't intend this, but reading this in the morning was totally like being back in law school -
@Lawgeek@levendowski "Well, Ms. Jeong, how do you think this would come out under the Sleekcraft/Polaroid factors?" -
@Lawgeek@levendowski "Umm... *swigs coffee* ... I'm sorry, I didn't do the reading this week."
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
@sarahjeong@levendowski Theeerrree we go. That and that alone. IFF yes, then try and determine intent, which makes some difference also.Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.