Information being provided is for consumers’ personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purposes other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. The Broker/Agent providing the information contained herein may or may not have been the Listing and/or Selling Agent. Unless otherwise specified in writing, the Broker/Agent has not and will not verify any information obtained from other sources.
Information from sources other than the Listing Agent may have been included in the MLS data. Buyers are responsible for verifying the accuracy of all information and should investigate the data themselves or retain appropriate professionals. Information is provided for consumers’ personal, non-commercial use, and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. MLS data is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed accurate by the MLS. Listing Courtesy of Marcus & Millichap, Mitchell Zurich, DRE #01870648 Marcus & Millichap, Fred Rubio, DRE #01984041īased on information from the San Francisco Association of Realtors as of 12:00 AM, the MLSListings MLS as of 12:00 AM, or the BAREIS MLS as of 12:00 AM.
#1436 adobe drive free
You are not required to use OriginPoint and are free to shop around and compare the terms of other providers. As Affiliates, any referral by one Affiliate to the other may provide the referring company, its affiliates, and/or their employees with a financial or other benefit. OriginPoint LLC is an affiliate of the Compass companies (OriginPoint LLC and Compass, each an “Affiliate”). Photos may be virtually staged or digitally enhanced and may not reflect actual property conditions. Because that is an empirical question for which the Trademark Office typically has no empirical evidence, failure to function has a sort of "know it when you see it" quality.No guarantee, warranty or representation of any kind is made regarding the completeness or accuracy of descriptions or measurements (including square footage measurements and property condition), such should be independently verified, and Compass expressly disclaims any liability in connection therewith.
Trademark use is also primarily a functional consideration an indicator has been "used as a mark" when, by virtue of its use, consumers are likely to regard it as source-indicating.
#1436 adobe drive registration
In this respect it should be no surprise that the Trademark Office has no real theory of trademark use, only a rule that prohibits registration when the claimed mark fails to function as a mark. The problem is that trademark use is only at issue when it's lacking when it's present, it's invisible. And, as Alex Roberts details in her excellent article Failure to Function, even more pervasively in the registration context. In fact, trademark use is everywhere in trademark law-in cases dealing with acquisition of common law rights, in priority disputes, in infringement cases, and in cases involving a variety of defensive doctrines. In the years following the trademark use debate, courts largely sided with Dinwoodie and Janis (or, I think more accurately, with me)-rejecting the contention that trademark use is a separate, threshold requirement. When I wrote, responding to both papers, I argued that trademark law does, and must, impose liability for only particular kinds of uses of a mark-uses "as a mark." But because "trademark use" can only be determined from the perspective of consumers, I argued, the question of whether a particular use qualifies inevitably collapses into the likelihood of confusion analysis (and therefore isn't a separate, threshold question.) Dogan and Lemley said yes-that some "uses" of a mark simply don't trigger liability, and a court needs to determine, as a threshold matter, whether the defendant has used the mark "as a brand." I was not a disinterested bystander on this question. Dinwoodie and Janis said no-that while only commercial use of a trademark can be considered infringing, there is no threshold requirement that the plaintiff prove that the defendant has used the mark in some particular "trademark" way. The topic was "trademark use," and the question was whether such a doctrine really exists. Back in 2007, the Iowa Law Review published a dialogue between Graeme Dinwoodie and Mark Janis, on the one hand, and Stacey Dogan and Mark Lemley on the other.
0 kommentar(er)
