Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, Samuel R. Bagenstos Sep 2017

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Court Briefs

Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled

No. 17-7035 (Lead Case), 17-7039
American Society for Testing Materials v. Public.Resources.Org, Inc.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

From the Summary of Argument

ASTM’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—the standards for which it claims copyright ownership. Dastar unambiguously holds, however, that only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the authorship of the standards or their authorization is not actionable. ASTM cannot avoid Dastar just because Public Resource creates digital copies of those standards. …


Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, John A. Conway, Mark Mckenna Jun 2017

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, John A. Conway, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 3:14-cv-01849-K
Zenimax Media Inc. v. Oculus VR, LLC

From the Summary of ArgumentPlaintiff’s false designation of origin and false endorsement claims, such as they are, rest on the assertion that defendants falsely represented themselves as the origin of intellectual property on which the Oculus Rift is based. Those claims are barred by Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), which holds that only confusion regarding the origin of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act.


Brief Amicus Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Mark Mckenna, Mark A. Lemley, Christopher Jon Sprigman, Rebecca Tushnett Jul 2016

Brief Amicus Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Mark Mckenna, Mark A. Lemley, Christopher Jon Sprigman, Rebecca Tushnett

Court Briefs

No. 15-866
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument:

In its 1976 revision of the Copyright Act, Congress decided to separate applied art from industrial design, admitting the former to copyright and excluding the latter. It drew this distinction precisely because it intended to differentiate copyright from design and utility patent. Congress recognized as applied art only those aesthetic features of a useful article that could be “separated” from that useful article rather than being integrated into the article.

The …


Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Mark Mckenna May 2016

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 15-14889
Edward Lewis Tobinick v. Steven Novella

Appeal from the United States Distric Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 9:14-cv-80781-RLR (Hon. Robin L. Rosenber)
[Including the] Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Nov. 30, 2015.

From the Summary of Argument

The District Court correctly determined that the challenged speech of Dr. Steven Novella was not commercial speech for purposes of applying the Lanham Act. Appellant’s argument to the contrary conflates “seeking profit” with “commercial speech.”


Brief Amici Curiae Of 37 Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Mark A. Lemley, Mark Mckenna Jan 2016

Brief Amici Curiae Of 37 Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Mark A. Lemley, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 15-777
Samsung Electonics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

From the Summary of Argument:

This case presents two issues that justify this Court’s review.
First, the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of design patent infringement based on the very same Apple designs that it found functional under trade dress law. Such a counterintuitive outcome is possible because the Federal Circuit has constructed a highly constrained definition of functionality in design patent law, which is at odds with this Court’s precedent in both utility …


Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellees, Mark Mckenna Nov 2015

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellees, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

The District Court correctly determined that Phoenix failed to state a trademark claim because Basket Case’s activities cannot have caused any relevant confusion.1 Phoenix’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—karaoke tracks. Under Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), however, only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the source of the karaoke tracks or their authorization is not actionable. Phoenix cannot avoid Dastar just because Basket Case creates digital copies of those tracks, as Basket Case does not sell digital files or …


Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellee National Football League, Rebecca Tushnet, Mark Mckenna Mar 2015

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellee National Football League, Rebecca Tushnet, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 14-3428
John Frederick Dryer v. National Football League

On Appeal from the United States Distric Court for the District of Minnesota, Civ. No. 09-02182 (PAM/FLN), Hon. Paul A. Magnuson

From the Summary of Argument

Based on the undisputed facts, the NFL’s films in this case are noncommercial speech; their profit-seeking and brand-building nature are standard features of noncommercial speech. Truthful, nondefamatory noncommercial speech deserves full First Amendment protection, and there is no justification for allowing Appellants to control speech about them in this case.

Separately, Appellants’ right of publicity claims are preempted by the Copyright Act, which allows owners …


Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellant/Cross-Appellee New Life Art, Inc. And Daniel A. Moore And Affirmance In Part, Mark Mckenna, Michael T. Sansbury Aug 2010

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellant/Cross-Appellee New Life Art, Inc. And Daniel A. Moore And Affirmance In Part, Mark Mckenna, Michael T. Sansbury

Court Briefs

No. 09-16412-AA, 10-10092-A
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. New Life Art

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division Civil Action No. CV-05-00585

The District Court properly held that New Life Art’s (“New Life”) creative works do not infringe the University of Alabama’s (“the University”) rights in the trade dress of its football uniforms, including the their crimson and white colors. First, New Life’s realistic depiction of the University’s football games is not likely to confuse consumers about the source of New Life’s goods, or as to the University’s …