Law Commons^™

Identical Cousins? On The Road With Dilution And The Right Of Publicity, Mary Lafrance

Scholarly Works

The dilution doctrine and the right of publicity have a great deal in common, because both represent property-like rights that have evolved from legal doctrines largely unrelated to property concerns. Although both doctrines have engendered controversy in the United States, the dilution doctrine generally evokes greater skepticism and confusion. This Article evaluates how these concepts are viewed in a number of jurisdictions outside the United States. From this examination, two conclusions emerge. First, despite the similarities between the doctrines, countries do not tend to adopt or reject them in tandem. Second, the degree to which each doctrine achieves widespread and …

No Reason To Live: Dilution Laws As Unconstitutional Restrictions On Commercial Speech, Mary Lafrance

Scholarly Works

Traditionally, trademark and unfair competition laws have protected trademark owners against unauthorized uses of their marks that are likely to confuse or mislead consumers about the origin of goods or services. If a particular use is not likely to confuse or mislead, then it is not actionable under traditional infringement regimes. When applied to commercial speech, as opposed to noncommercial expression, traditional trademark and unfair competition laws generally have survived scrutiny under the First Amendment, because these laws restrict only commercial speech that is false or misleading.

Dilution laws, however, do not restrict speech that is false or misleading. Dilution …

Steam Shovels And Lipstick: Trademarks, Greed, And The Public Domain, Mary Lafrance

Scholarly Works

Although the law of trademarks and unfair competition at one time concerned itself only with false designations of origin that were likely to confuse consumers about the origin of goods or services, with the emergence of the dilution doctrine during the twentieth century individual states--and ultimately Congress--began offering the owners of particularly strong marks the opportunity to prevent others from using these marks even in ways which were unlikely to lead to consumer confusion. In so doing, the law began to treat trademarks as property in themselves--the product of a trademark owner's investment in good will--rather than merely as signals …