Law Commons^™

The Commodification Of Trademarks: Some Final Thoughts On Trademark Dilution, Kenneth L. Port

Faculty Scholarship

This article is an explication of the trend toward commodification of famous or putatively famous trademarks and the resultant urging that the FTDA be repealed. This article starts with a literature review showing that the vast majority of commentators have been severely critical of the FTDA. This has been ignored by Congress. The article next pursues Congress's blind support of the FTDA and suggests that more thought and analysis from Congress is still required. The article next explains the data regarding FTDA claims. All reported cases from 1996 through 2015 are coded and examined. The conclusion, looking at the data, …

The Expansion Trajectory: Trademark Jurisprudence In The Modern Age, Kenneth L. Port

Faculty Scholarship

American trademark law is expanding. The expansion began with the adoption of

the Lanham Act in 1947. At that time and ever since, commentators and law makers

alike referred to the Lanham Act as a codification of the existing common law. In fact,

this codification was a selection and expansion of the common law. The United States

has continued to expand trademark jurisprudence: from incontestability, to cybersquatting,

to dilution - the notion of what it means to protect a trademark has

continued to expand. During this time, the Commerce Clause on which American

federal trademark protection is based has not …

Eighth Circuit Trademark Opinions, Kenneth L. Port

Faculty Scholarship

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ trademark jurisprudence has been truly fair and balanced since the 1946 passage of the Lanham Act. The court has created this fair and balanced jurisprudence by creating firm standards and sticking to them. Although not the most popular circuit in which to find a trademark case, the Eighth Circuit has kept a constant vigil to assure that trademark plaintiffs do not dominate over trademark defendants. This balanced approach to trademark law is consistent with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which recently held that “advertising injury” included trademark infringement, and therefore the defendant’s insurance carrier had …