The Secretary of Commerce is authorized, upon the request of any person, firm, organization, or others, public or private, to make special studies on matters within the authority of the Department of Commerce; to prepare from its records special compilations, lists, bulletins, or reports; to perform the functions authorized by section 1152 of this title; and to furnish transcripts or copies of its studies, compilations, and other records; upon the payment of the actual or estimated cost of such special work.
In the case of nonprofit organizations, research organizations, or public organizations or agencies, the Secretary may engage in joint projects, or perform services, on matters of mutual interest, the cost of which shall be apportioned equitably, as determined by the Secretary, who may, however, waive payment of any portion of such costs by others, when authorized to do so under regulations approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
Notes of Decisions
Yanofsky v. U.S. Dep't of Com., 306 F. Supp. 3d 292 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 10× “§ 552 (a)(4)(A)(vi) ), and that the relevant superseding fee statute was 15 U.S.C. § 1525 . ( See id. ¶¶ 42-43 .) Yanofsky filed the FOIA request that is the subject of the instant action in February of 2016, after he unsuccessfully sought to appeal the agency's conclusion that…”
Yeager v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 627 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff contends that he has sufficiently alleged a claim under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1525 (a), through defendant’s unauthorized use of his name and identity in connection with the alleged advertisement.”
Eastman Outdoors, Inc. v. Blackhawk Arrow Co., 329 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
“After Plaintiffs filed suit and notified some of Plaintiffs’ customers of the pending litigation, Defendants filed a Counterclaim for Unfair Competition under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1525 . Now, Plaintiffs move to dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaim for Unfair…”
Pet Silk, Inc. v. Jackson, 481 F. Supp. 2d 824 (S.D. Tex. 2007).
“15 U.S.C. § 1525 (d)(1)(A). MJM uses not one but two domain names — www.”
Yanofsky v. Dep't of Com. (D.D.C. 2018).
· cites it 9× “§ 552 (a)(4)(A)(vi)), and that the relevant superseding fee statute was 15 U.S.C. § 1525 . (See id. ¶¶ 4243.) Yanofsky filed the FOIA request that is the subject of the instant action in February of 2016, after he unsuccessfully sought to appeal the agency’s conclusion that the…”
Impact Applications, Inc. v. Concussion Mgmt., LLC (D. Maryland 2021).
“Procedural History ImPACT Applications filed its initial Complaint on October 25, 2019, alleging claims of false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1525 (a), and common law unfair competition against XLNTbrain, Harry Kerasidis, M.”
Better Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Mfrs.' Ass'n (W.D. Pa. 2025).
“Count Two alleges a violation of the anti-cybersquatting provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1525 (d). (Ud. at 8-9). PMA argues that both counts are meritless because the relevant statutory provisions only address commercial activities and the record shows that neither party is engaged in…”
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.