Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKeenan, Sara L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-18T16:01:38Z
dc.date.available2013-02-18T16:01:38Z
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.citation37 Creighton L. Rev. 967 (2003-2004)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40496
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|The United States Supreme Court has stated a basic objective of trademark law is to prevent competitors from copying source-identifying marks. By doing so, it reduces customer costs and purchasing decisions by assuring customers an item the trademark identifies is made by the same manufacturer as other items with that trademark. In addition, trademark law helps to assure a manufacturer that it will reap the benefits from the goodwill associated with a desirable product. Generally, the design of these trademark policies is to protect consumers from being misled as to the manufacturer of a product, to prevent impairment to the value of the company that owns the trademark, and to achieve these goals in an approach consistent with the objectives of free competition...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleInteractive Products Corp. v. A2Z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc.: The Sixth Circuit Failed to Conduct a thorough Analysis in Determining Whether Using a Trademark in the Post-Domain Path of a URL Is Trademark Infringementen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume37en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2003-2004en_US
dc.description.pages967en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record