RECONDITIONING AT OWNER'S REQUEST DOES NOT INVOKE LANHAM ACT Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. v. Fiber Tech Med. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

RECONDITIONING AT OWNER'S REQUEST DOES NOT INVOKE LANHAM ACT Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. v. Fiber Tech Med. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, RECONDITIONING AT OWNER'S REQUEST DOES NOT INVOKE LANHAM ACT Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. v. Fiber Tech Med., Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

RECONDITIONING AT OWNER'S REQUEST DOES NOT INVOKE LANHAM ACT Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. v. Fiber Tech Med.

7 No. 16 ANIPLR 17Andrews Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

RECONDITIONING AT OWNER'S REQUEST DOES NOT INVOKE LANHAM ACT Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. v. Fiber Tech Med.

7 No. 16 ANIPLR 17Andrews Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

7 No. 16 Andrews Intell. Prop. Litig. Rep. 17
Andrews Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter
March 2, 2001
Trademark Infringement
Copyright (c) 2001 Andrews Publications

RECONDITIONING AT OWNER'S REQUEST DOES NOT INVOKE LANHAM ACT

Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. v. Fiber Tech Med.

A Fourth Circuit panel “declined to extend the Lanham Act to repairs or modifications made at the request of the owner” in a dispute over potential trademark violations by a reconditioner of surgical equipment. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America Inc. v....
End of Document© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.