Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1214 (2026)

Application

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Application.  This chapter does not apply to:  
A. Conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of, or a statute administered by, a federal, state or local governmental agency;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (AMD).]
B. Publishers, broadcasters, printers or other persons engaged in the dissemination of information or reproduction of printed or pictorial matter who publish, broadcast or reproduce material without knowledge of its deceptive character; or   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
C. Actions or appeals pending on October 1, 1969.   [PL 1973, c. 625, §54 (AMD).]
[PL 1973, c. 625, §54 (AMD).]
2.  Limitation.  Section 1212, subsection 1, paragraphs B and C do not apply to the use of a service mark, trademark, certification mark, collective mark, trade name or other trade identification that was used and not abandoned before October 1, 1969, if the use was in good faith and is otherwise lawful except for this chapter.  
[PL 1973, c. 625, §55 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 625, §§54,55 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2020 · leading case: Patane v. Nestle Waters North Am., Inc. (D. Conn. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patane v. Nestle Waters North Am., Inc. (D. Conn. 2020). “” Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1214(1)(A). It further provides that MUDTPA “shall be construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.”
Laing v. Clair Car Connection (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “” 10 M.RS.A. § 1214 (1997). Because Defendant properly * In its Reply Brief Defendant raises, for the first time, Plaintiff's failure to present prima facie evidence of damages, an element required by three of the four claims for relief.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1214(1)(A) — 1 case
Patane v. Nestle Waters North Am., Inc. (D. Conn. 2020). “” Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1214(1)(A). It further provides that MUDTPA “shall be construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.