Trademark infringement

Definition and stakes

Supreme Court of the United States Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products (2023)

The Lanham Act also creates a federal cause of action for trademark infringement. In the typical case, the owner of a mark sues someone using a mark that closely resembles its own. The court must decide whether the defendant’s use is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” §§1114 (1) (A) , 1125 (a) (1) (A) . The “keystone” in that statutory standard is “likelihood of confusion.” See 4 McCarthy §23:1. And the single type of confusion most commonly in trademark law’s sights is confusion “about the source of a product or service.”
Source: Wikisource

Live Nation Motor Sports, Inc. v… (2007)

The court agrees with SFX that Davis has failed to meet his burden of showing that no genuine issue of a material fact exists on his trademark infringement claims to entitle him to summary judgment.
To prevail on a trademark infringement claim, the plaintiff must show “ (1) that the mark or trade dress, as the case may be, qualifies for protection and (2) that [defendant’s] use of the mark or trade dress creates a likelihood of confusion in the minds of potential consumers.”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Herman Cyril McNeile Herman Cyril McNeile Bull-dog Drummond (1920)

I'd further worry that some trademark-infringement law might be passed that criminalizes the act of removing the trademark from the document, perhaps without much public discussion or awareness of the issue. For comparison, consider the H.R. 2652 (1997) by Howard Coble, part of an international push that actually did burden Europeans with "database rights".
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature