<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
			
			<rss version="2.0">
			<channel>
			<title>Filewrapper&#xae; |  A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog by MVS - Suggestive marks</title>
			<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm</link>
			<description>News and Commentary from the world of Intellectual Property Law - The blawg of McKee, Voorhees &amp;amp Sease, P.L.C.</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 06:46:17-0500</pubDate>
			<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:37:00-0500</lastBuildDate>
			<generator>BlogCFC</generator>
			<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
			<managingEditor>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</webMaster>
			
			
			
			
			
			<item>
				<title>Eleventh Circuit:  Trademark licensee liable for infringement when deviating from license</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/1/17/Eleventh-Circuit--Trademark-licensee-liable-for-infringement-when-not-using-exact-mark-licensed</link>
				<description>
				
				&lt;p&gt;In a decision Tuesday, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit&quot;&gt;Eleventh Circuit&lt;/a&gt;  affirmed a district court&amp;#39;s finding of trademark infringement against a trademark licensee.&amp;nbsp; The alleged infringer was actually licensed to use the mark owner&amp;#39;s trademark, but did not use the mark as described in the license, instead using an abbreviated form.&amp;nbsp; As a result, the court affirmed the jury&amp;#39;s finding of infringement and the associated damages award, reviewing its seven-factor likelihood-of-confusion test and emphasizing the factors of actual confusion and type of mark. &amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the court vacated the district court&amp;#39;s injunction against further infringement.&amp;nbsp; Because the infringer was actually licensed to use the mark as a whole, an injunction that prevented further use of the truncated mark &amp;quot;or any other similar marks&amp;quot; (language often used in trademark injunctions) was inappropriately broad, as it would prevent the infringer from using the licensed mark.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More detail of &lt;em&gt;Aronowitz v. Heath-Chem Corp.&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Trademarks</category>				
				
				<category>Licensing</category>				
				
				<category>Suggestive marks</category>				
				
				<category>Injunctions</category>				
				
				<category>Likelihood of confusion</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:37:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2008/1/17/Eleventh-Circuit--Trademark-licensee-liable-for-infringement-when-not-using-exact-mark-licensed</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			</channel></rss>