Law Commons^™

One Chuck, Two Chuck: Analyzing Whether Federally Registered Trademarks Should Be Distinguished From Unregistered, Common-Law Trademarks In The Context Of Converse, Inc. V. International Trade Commission, Mckenzie Subart

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This Comment analyzes which trademark model (the pyramid model or the box model) is a better representation and characterization of trademarks and trademark rights. Under the pyramid model, there is one trademark: both common law rights and federal registration rights attach to this single trademark. For the pyramid model, trademark rights resemble a pyramid because federal registration rights build upon the foundation created by common law rights. Common law rights and federal registration rights are interdependent. Under the box model, there is a common-law trademark and a federal trademark: common law rights attach to the common-law trademark, and federal registration …

The Defend Trade Secrets Act: Why Interpreting The New Law On Its Own Terms Promotes Uniformity, Patrick Ruelle

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Trade secrets, a category of intellectual property recognized at state and federal law, are integral parts of many corporations’ intellectual property portfolios. A trade secret is a type of intellectual property that is not disclosed by its owner, and is therefore unlike patents, trademarks, or copyrights—all types of information that are disclosed to the public. As a result, trade secrets may represent a viable alternative to patents and copyrights since its value is derived from its secrecy.

In the United States, the laws governing trade secrets have typically been the offspring of the state common law. As each state developed …

A New History Of Waste Law: How A Misunderstood Doctrine Shaped Ideas About The Transformation Of Law, Jill M. Fraley

Marquette Law Review

In the traditional account, American courts transformed the law of waste, radically diverging from the British courts around the time of the American Revolution. Some of the most influential theorists of American legal history have used this account as evidence that American law is driven by economics. Due to its adoption by influential scholars, this traditional account of waste law has shaped not only our understanding of property law, but also how we view the process of transforming law.

That traditional account, however, came not from a history of the doctrine, but from an elaboration of the benefits of the …

The Diffusion Of Doctrinal Innovations In Tort Law, Kyle Graham

Marquette Law Review

This Article examines the spread of “successful” common-law doctrinal innovations in the law of torts. Its analysis reveals recurring influences upon and tendencies within the diffusion of novel tort doctrines across the states. The studied diffusion patterns also document a trend toward common-law doctrinal “stabilization” over the past quarter-century. As detailed herein, this stabilization owes in part to altered adoption dynamics associated with the ongoing shrinkage and fragmentation of the common-law tort dockets entertained by state supreme courts. Prevailing conditions will make it difficult, this Article concludes, for even well-received common-law doctrinal innovations of the future to match the rapid …

Enduring Doctrine: The Collateral Source Rule In Wisconsin Injury Law, Joseph P. Poehlmann

Marquette Law Review

When the common law collateral source rule first arose in the area of tort law over one hundred years ago, only a minority of individuals maintained health insurance coverage to protect against loss in the event that a negligent actor injured them. Today, however, the vast majority of Americans are covered. Because of this change in the landscape of insurance coverage, many jurisdictions have abrogated or greatly eroded the collateral source rule under the belief that the rule no longer holds a justified role in personal injury litigation. Wisconsin, however, continues to follow the common law form of the rule …

The Uneasy And Often Unhelpful Interaction Of Tort Law And Constitutional Law In First Amendment Litigation, George C. Christie

Marquette Law Review

There are increasing tensions between the First Amendment and the common law torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and privacy. This Article discusses the conflicting interactions among the three models that are competing for primacy as the tort law governing expressive activities evolves to accommodate the requirements of the First Amendment. At one extreme there is the model that expression containing information which has been lawfully obtained that contains neither intentional falsehoods nor incitements to immediate violence can only be sanctioned in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances, even if that expression involves matters that are universally regarded as being …