Ordinary Words, Same State, No Targeting – vol. 6.25

Ordinary Words, Same State, No Targeting The most significant aspect of the decision is the Panel’s refusal to infer targeting merely because the parties were both located in Arizona and both offered consulting-related services. While those facts might support further inquiry in a trademark infringement action, they did not relieve the Complainant of its burden to prove bad faith registration …

The post Ordinary Words, Same State, No Targeting – vol. 6.25 appeared first on InternetCommerce.org.