Talk:Lanham Act/Archives/2012

Expansion request

History; when, why enacted; part dealing with domain names. --Pmsyyz 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

Sentence about (1)(B) marked dubious grossly misrepresents the law because the last word in Section 43(a)(1)(A) is "OR", not "AND", and because the law specifies "persons". So unless case law has radically departed from the law, this has gotta be wrong, and it's uncited. I've added a second sentence about (1)(A). I suspect a harmonious merge is the best solution.--Elvey (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

1129?

Cyberpiracy is 1125(d), not 1129...did it move? It's cited, but it points to something that just says "transferred" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.31.218 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

More than one Lanham Act

The 1940 Lanham Act created housing for World War II war workers, especially in the Pacific Northwest (Boeing, Bremerton Naval Shipyard). Much of this housing became public housing in the post World War II period. At the very least, this article needs a redirect or mention of this other Lanham Act, discussed in the Federal Works Agency article. The title of this article likely should be changed to reflect the date, to make clear in a search which Lanham Act is discussed.Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Dubious tag

I would suggest reconsidering this tag. As best I see, the sentence about (1)(B) marked dubious makes no misrepresentation and probably should not be marked dubious. I would suggest instead that some formatting and/or reordering might cure the issue.

The scope of the statement in the (1)(B) paragraph is specifically limited by direct reference only to those claims which fall under (1)(B). There is no assertion whatsoever, positive or negative in this sentence or in its immediate paragraph that regards claims under (1)(A). Those claims are treated separately in the paragraph immediately following, which is, I suppose, a structural problem, and somewhat confusing.

But, really the only thing that might be necessary to clean this up would be to reverse the order of the paragraphs so that the explanation of (1)(A) comes first, followed by the paragraph on (1)(B). This is a more natural and functional order that follows the structure of the cited code itself, and leaves less room for doubt that the statements in each paragraph are each specific to their referenced subsections, and that neither serves to negate the other, but that both are subordinate to the generally more inclusive scope of the whole. Perhaps some indentation, numbering or the like might be used as well to better show the relationship.

However, I agree that the shift in this sentence from general description to practical case application really does call for the citation of additional source material to truly be considered verifiable and encyclopedic. Perhaps a simple "citation needed" tag instead. Jeverettk (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)