Zoom Logo

Masters of the Closed Universe: Memo Writing Tips - Shared screen with speaker view
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
22:56
507 F.3d 252; 962 F.2d 316; 510 US 569
Scott Wilson
25:16
Wow, Folder Analysis is amazing!
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
29:03
Here is the link of the case: https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibbf9b918922611dca1e6fa81e64372bf/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0
Sabah Azam
31:58
TrademarksFor trademark purposes, a “parody” is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark's owner.
Maya Simmons
31:59
4
Brendan OBrien
32:03
5
Inbal Giron
32:04
5
George Acquah
32:06
Link for registration please
Jillian Siemiawski
32:06
5
Damian Jhagroo
32:09
4
Leah Payne
32:09
16
George Acquah
32:10
5
Mohammed Basaar
32:10
5
Sabah Azam
32:19
4 TrademarksFor trademark purposes, a “parody” is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark's owner.
Magnolia Yee
32:20
5
Haekyong Min
32:20
4
Sabah Azam
32:23
It was cut off^
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
32:28
Here is the attendance link: https://lawschool.westlaw.com/flagtogage/event/128750
Angelo Pisani
32:29
14
Tess J Halpern
32:34
4
Theodora Hyun-Ju Oh
32:35
4
Danielle Lowery
32:36
5
Xiomara Torres
32:36
4
Fer Ghanaa Ansari
32:58
4
Shawn Lopez
34:14
For trademark purposes, “[a] ‘parody’ is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark's owner.”Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 260 (4th Cir. 2007)
Trapp Devin
35:29
5
Sabah Azam
35:32
Apr. 09, 2012 Case10Headnote Description13Headnote Description16Headnote DescriptionF.3dDistinguished by5. U.S. v. Chong LamQuotes KeyCited caseMost Negative677 F.3d 190, 4th Cir.(Va.)CRIMINAL JUSTICE - Counterfeiting. Sufficient evidence support jury's conclusion that the mark used on defendants' goods was a counterfeit.
Tess J Halpern
35:36
U.S. v. Chong Lam
Xiomara Torres
35:39
Radiance Foundation, Inc. v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People
Leah Payne
35:46
Us v Chong lam
Damian Jhagroo
35:50
Us v Chong lam
Magnolia Yee
35:54
U.S. v. Chong Lam
George Acquah
36:01
Us v Chong Lam
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
36:25
Here is the attendance link: https://lawschool.westlaw.com/flagtogage/event/128750
Sabah Azam
36:30
Thank you.
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
36:35
Great job!
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
36:53
Here is the attendance link: https://lawschool.westlaw.com/flagtogage/event/128750
Brendan OBrien
37:50
Great presentation Shawn... do all participants receive a Louis Vuitton bag?
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
37:58
Winners of today's raffle for attending the webinar:Timothy HintonXiomara Torres
Maya Simmons
37:59
Thank you for such an insightful webinar!
Rickey Newsome
38:02
Fingers cross
Rickey Newsome
38:22
Thx awesome.
Brendan OBrien
38:23
Great presentation Shawn... do all participants receive a Louis Vuitton bag?
Brendan OBrien
38:29
:-)
Fer Ghanaa Ansari
38:37
Hahaha!
Leah Payne
40:04
Thank you Shawn and Francesca!
Xiomara Torres
40:10
thank you!
Brendan OBrien
40:16
Thanks Fran and Shawn!!!
Rickey Newsome
40:18
so adv. ()
George Acquah
40:21
Thanks
Alison Ayekoloye
40:30
I can’t submit my attendance yet.
Rickey Newsome
40:33
cool
Alison Ayekoloye
40:36
Is that ok?
Francesca Phan, Westlaw Account Manager
40:39
Here is the attendance link: https://lawschool.westlaw.com/flagtogage/event/128750
Alison Ayekoloye
40:51
Ok
Alison Ayekoloye
40:54
Thanks