Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellees, Mark Mckenna
Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellees, Mark Mckenna
Court Briefs
The District Court correctly determined that Phoenix failed to state a trademark claim because Basket Case’s activities cannot have caused any relevant confusion.1 Phoenix’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—karaoke tracks. Under Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), however, only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the source of the karaoke tracks or their authorization is not actionable. Phoenix cannot avoid Dastar just because Basket Case creates digital copies of those tracks, as Basket Case does not sell digital files or …
The Hydrox Resurrection, Mark Mckenna
The Hydrox Resurrection, Mark Mckenna
NDLS in the News
KESTENBAUM: I wasn't going to let that stop me. So I called up a trademark expert, Mark McKenna at Notre Dame, and I asked him, is this right? Can someone just waltz in and grab a hundredyearold trademark, suddenly own this whole history? It seemed a little weird 'cause a trademark is like a kind of property. And if you think of this like land...
SMITH: Like, hey, I notice you haven't mowed your lawn for a while, so I'm just going to take a little part of your property.
KESTENBAUM: Yeah, it seems crazy, right? McKenna said, I'm thinking …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellee National Football League, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet
Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellee National Football League, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet
Court Briefs
Based on the undisputed facts, the NFL’s films in this case are noncommercial speech; their profit-seeking and brand-building nature are standard features of noncommercial speech. Truthful, nondefamatory noncommercial speech deserves full First Amendment protection, and there is no justification for allowing Appellants to control speech about them in this case.
Separately, Appellants’ right of publicity claims are preempted by the Copyright Act, which allows owners of copyrighted works to exploit those works by reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance—precisely the conduct at issue here.
Finally, Appellants’ trademark claims are also precluded by the First Amendment, given that …