Law Commons^™

The Proof Is In The Data: How Ethereum And Efficient Audits Can Reduce Litigation In The Streaming Era, Keri Ogden

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Courts, Trademarks, And The Icann Gold Rush: No Free Speech In Top Level Domains, Jerome O'Callaghan, Paula O'Callaghan

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

In recent years, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) expanded top-level domains, such as .com, .net, and .org, to include a very wide variety of new terms. One of the new options is .sucks. This Article examines the potential for conflict when trademark holders seek to protect their mark in the context of the .sucks domain. There is a temptation to see this issue in terms of consumers’ free speech rights pitted against corporate interests. However, the recent privatization of ICANN does not bode well for promoting consumers’ First Amendment rights in domain name battles.

An Empirical Examination Of Consumer Survey Use In Trademark Litigation, Katie Brown Ph.D, Natasha T. Brison, Paul Batista

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Article is a comprehensive examination of the use of consumer surveys in trademark litigation cases at the federal level. Previous research has shown consumer surveys can be critical to the outcome of trademark litigation, as they measure the idiosyncratic mental associations and reactions of prospective consumers. For this Article, this study examined 843 trademark infringement and dilution cases spanning 2007 to 2017. The findings reveal consumer surveys are not utilized in trademark litigation as often as research suggests they should be. While consumer surveys are not required in trademark litigation, nor necessarily easy or inexpensive to com- mission, this …

Capitol Records V. Vimeo: How The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Is Outdated And In Need Of Revision, Dustin Johnson

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment analyzes the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2016). Beginning with a brief overview of the DMCA’s history, this Comment acknowledges the Second Circuit’s holding in Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012). In Viacom, the Second Circuit set precedent with its interpretation of the knowledge requirements for safe harbor under section 512(c) of the DMCA.

In Capitol Records, the Second Circuit confirmed its holding in Viacom but missed an …

Battle Of The Band: Exploring The Unconstitutionality Of Section 2(A) Of The Lanham Act And The Fate Of Disparaging, Scandalous, And Immoral Trademarks In A Consumer-Driven Market, Tanya Behnam

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

In the 2016-2017 term, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Matal v. Tam, holding that the Lanham Act’s section 2(a) ban on disparaging trademarks—which prevents registration of any trademarks that the PTO deems to be disparaging to any groups or institutions—is unconstitutional. Although meant to only apply to section 2(a)’s ban on disparaging trademarks, the Court’s decision increases the likelihood that section 2(a)’s still-standing ban on scandalous and immoral marks are unconstitutional as well.

This Comment first reviews the basic principles of trademark law and the Lanham Act, summarizes Simon Tam’s legal battles, and briefly presents the conflicting …

Comment: Ray V. Espn, Inc. And The Need For Further Development In Copyright Preemption Analysis Of The Right Of Publicity In Professional Sports, Thomas Hwang

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

"If That's The Way It Must Be, Okay": Campbell V. Acuff-Rose On Rewind

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

The 1994 Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose established broad protections for parody in U.S. copyright law. While the case is well known, the facts behind the case are not. None of the three courts that heard the case were told that the alleged parody by 2 Live Crew appeared only on a “sanitized” version of the group’s controversial album. Thus the work had a heightened commercial purpose: filling up a meager album so that album could serve as a market stopgap for its controversial cousin. Although commercial purpose is a key factor in the fair use calculus, no court …

A Sui Generis System Of Protection For Exceptionally Original Fashion Designs

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

Despite the robust nature of the fashion industry, which has been largely unprotected by copyright, there is a clamor among certain sectors for stronger protection for fashion designs and the apparel manufactured from these designs. This article acknowledges that full-dress copyright protection is unnecessary, impracticable, and harmful; however, it proposes a middle-ground: a sui generis system of protection that only protects fashion designs and pieces of apparel that are exceptionally original, and does so only against other articles that are substantially identical.

This article provides a standard (“exceptionally original”) that will protect a fashion design only if it meets certain …

Set The Statutes Straight: Amending The Lanham Act To Dispel The Confusion Regarding Reverse Confusion, Inna Kaminer

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

The typical case of alleged trademark infringement, i.e., “forward confusion,” involves a larger and more established “senior user” and a smaller and less powerful “junior user.” The secondary junior user wrongfully uses the first senior user’s mark as its own, and thus benefits from the senior user’s more established goodwill. In ruling on a senior user’s trademark infringement claim, the court will use a set of “likelihood of confusion” factors to determine if consumers are confusing the junior user’s goods for that of the senior. Each circuit’s factors vary, but they are harmonious. The issue that this Note explores is …

By Any Other Name: Image Advertising And The Commercial Speech Doctrine In Jordan V. Jewel, Kelly Miller

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment focuses on the commercial speech doctrine as applied to modern advertising strategies, specifically, corporate image advertising. It centers on the recent litigation between basketball superstar Michael Jordan and a Chicago-area grocery chain, Jewel-Osco. When Michael Jordan was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Jewel-Osco was invited to submit a congratulatory ad for a commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated devoted exclusively to Jordan’s career and accomplishments. Because Jordan had spent the bulk of his storied professional basketball career with the Chicago Bulls, the ad seemed a natural fit. Jordan, who did not give permission for his name to …