Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet
Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet
Court Briefs
ASTM’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—the standards for which it claims copyright ownership. Dastar unambiguously holds, however, that only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the authorship of the standards or their authorization is not actionable. ASTM cannot avoid Dastar just because Public Resource creates digital copies of those standards. Consumers encounter the ASTM marks only as part of the standards, into which ATSM chose to embed the marks. As a result, any “confusion” could only be the result of the content itself. Dastar teaches that …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, John A. Conway
Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, John A. Conway
Court Briefs
Plaintiff’s false designation of origin and false endorsement claims, such as they are, rest on the assertion that defendants falsely represented themselves as the origin of intellectual property on which the Oculus Rift is based. Those claims are barred by Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), which holds that only confusion regarding the origin of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act.