Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Thin Separability: An Answer To Star Athletica, Angelo Marchesini
Thin Separability: An Answer To Star Athletica, Angelo Marchesini
Seattle University Law Review
Courts have consistently struggled to adopt a test that appropriately interprets the Copyright Act’s language protecting works of art incorporated into useful articles. The analysis that allows protections of these works of art is called “separability,” and it has been an ambiguous area of copyright law since its inception. In essence, this analysis gives copyright protection to a work of art incorporated into a useful article as long as the work of art is “separate” from the utilitarian aspects of the useful article. The Supreme Court was positioned to end the uncertainty surrounding the separability analysis in its recent decision, …
Forms Of Redress For Design Piracy: How Victims Can Use Existing Copyright Law, Peter K. Schalestock
Forms Of Redress For Design Piracy: How Victims Can Use Existing Copyright Law, Peter K. Schalestock
Seattle University Law Review
Part I of this Comment explores the nature and scope of design piracy in the fashion industry. It also discusses the impact of modem technology on pirates and their victims. Part II reviews the existing intellectual property legal framework, emphasizing copyright law and its application to clothing design. Part III discusses the exclusion of clothing design from copyright protection and reviews cases that have addressed that issue. Finally, Part IV suggests ways that designers might obtain greater protection. The alternatives explored are (1) the proper application of existing law to find separable protectable design elements, and (2) congressional action to …
Unconstitutional Incontestability? The Intersection Of The Intellectual Property And Commerce Clauses Of The Constitution: Beyond A Critique Of Shakespeare Co. V. Silstar Corp, Malla Pollack
Seattle University Law Review
This article makes several assertions: (1) The Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution, even read with the Commerce Clause, prevents Congress from giving authors or inventors exclusive rights unbounded by premeasured time limitations; (2) Because such limits exist, even incontestable trademarks must be subject to functionality challenges in order to prevent conflict with the Patent Clause; (3) The Intellectual Property Clause requires a similar challenge to prevent conflict with the Copyright Clause; (4) The states are also limited by either direct constitutional mandate or statutory preemption. Based on the first two assertions, this article argues that the Fourth Circuit's decision …