[E-trademarks] Can attorneys be guilty of trademark infringement for the manner they identify themselves?

[voyer@keganlaw.com]

Recently a few quasi-celebrity attorneys were found liable for promoting unsupportable legal theories.
If the facts were clear, then the attorneys might be liable (for something by some tribunal) if a reasonable
attorney with reasonable due diligence would not make black-letter claims.


> On Nov 9, 2023, at 4:23 PM, Janice Housey via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> All—
> I was recently presented with an interesting hypothetical situation:
> Let’s party A’s trademark is XYZ GROUP (i.e., a trademark particularly associated with a particular group/organization/institution--  and the mark is registered th), a splinter group forms and claims that they are the “real” XYZ GROUP and starts using XYZ GROUP in various ways.  (Yes—party A is addressing these infringements.)  In the meantime,  attorneys representing the splinter group sends correspondence to third parties identifying themselves as “Attorneys for XYZ GROUP.”
> Are the splinter group’s attorneys potentially liable for trademark infringement as well?  Anyone aware of any case law on this issue?
>  
> Janice Housey 
> Litmus Law PLLC
>  
> NEW MAILING ADDRESS!
> 4 Weems Lane #240
> Winchester, Virginia 22601 
> 703.957.5274 office
> 703.851.6737 cell
>  -- 
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231109/9e08a659/attachment.htm>