tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9828303.post2673774319922558996..comments2023-10-19T06:31:04.267-05:00Comments on Likely to be Confused -- The Softer Side of IP Law: 9th Circuit decision on "tacking" doctrine in context of an evolving trademark designTom Casagrandehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11593154781580293992noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9828303.post-27866374489863857012009-09-01T11:19:24.666-05:002009-09-01T11:19:24.666-05:00That's a good catch -- yet another absurdity i...That's a good catch -- yet another absurdity in this opinion. The comparison still would have been with the most recent mark. The prior iterations would have come into play only if the plaintiff prevailed on the current mark and the court was considering the scope and wording of an injunction.Tom Casagrandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01063672869415617237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9828303.post-53942745514049031992009-08-26T21:41:48.521-05:002009-08-26T21:41:48.521-05:00Kudos for noticing, no other bloggers seem to have...Kudos for noticing, no other bloggers seem to have. It didn't look like the plaintiff was using the older mark (or it wouldn't have needed to rely on tacking). But don't we measure likelihood of confusion at the time of suit? I didn't get the point of the whole tacking discussion - what would have happened if the court had allowed tacking? Would there have been confusion?Pamela Chestekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997764091535406126noreply@blogger.com