Law Commons^™

Protecting Nominative Fair Use, Parody, And Other Speech-Interests By Reforming The Inconsistent Exemptions From Trademark Liability, Samuel M. Duncan

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Federal trademark law exempts certain communicative uses of a trademark from liability so that the public can freely use a trademark to comment on the markowner or to describe its products. These exemptions for "speech-interests" are badly flawed because their scope is inconsistent between infringement and dilution law, and because the cost and difficulty of claiming their protection varies significantly from court to court. Many speech-interests remain vulnerable to the chilling threat of litigation even though they are "protected" by current law. This Note proposes a simple statutory reform that will remedy this inconsistency by creating an express safe harbor …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellant/Cross-Appellee New Life Art, Inc. And Daniel A. Moore And Affirmance In Part, Mark Mckenna, Michael T. Sansbury

Court Briefs

No. 09-16412-AA, 10-10092-A
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. New Life Art

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division Civil Action No. CV-05-00585

The District Court properly held that New Life Art’s (“New Life”) creative works do not infringe the University of Alabama’s (“the University”) rights in the trade dress of its football uniforms, including the their crimson and white colors. First, New Life’s realistic depiction of the University’s football games is not likely to confuse consumers about the source of New Life’s goods, or as to the University’s …

Vol. Xix, Tab 56 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Spaziano Declaration In Opposition To Google's Motion, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 44 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 45 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 65 - Klipple Deposition (Rosetta Marketing Manager), Christopher Klipple

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 35 - Deposition Of Jason Calhoun (Rosetta Stone Enforcement Manager), Jason Calhoun

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 50 - Deposition Of Edward Blair (Statistical Analysis Expert For Google), Edward Blair

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Intellectual Property Law Research, Charlene Cain

Research Guides

This research guides provides an overview of resources and search strategies for researching Intellectual Property Law: subject headings, statutes and popular names for selected statutes, legislative histories, regulations, and treatises. It also identifies sources for researching case law and secondary sources - reporters, courts, selected periodicals, and blogs and websites.

Vol. Xvii, Tab 54 - Google's Reply Motion In Further Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment, Google

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Honoring International Obligations In U.S. Trademark Law: How The Lanham Act Protects Well-Known Foreign Marks (And Why The Second Circuit Was Wrong), Lee Ann Lockridge

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

The European Court Of Justice Rules On Keyword Ads And Trademark Rights, David Franklyn

Publications

On March 22, 2010, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued a decision finding Google not liable for trademark infringement in the context of its Ad Words program. The European Court of Justice issued its long-anticipated decision in the three Google AdWords cases referred to it by the French Cour de Cassation. The ruling only answers the questions posed to it by the Cour de Cassation. Nevertheless, the ECJ's decision should be favorable to Google and other keyword advertising vendors throughout Europe.

On Balance: General Casualty Co. V. Wozniak Travel, Inc., Kenneth L. Port

Journal of Law and Practice

No abstract provided.

La Russa's Loophole: Trademark Infringement Lawsuits And Social Networks, Jillian Bluestone

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.