Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Against Secondary Meaning, Jeanne C. Fromer
Against Secondary Meaning, Jeanne C. Fromer
Notre Dame Law Review
Trademark law premises protection and scope of marks on secondary meaning, which is established when a mark develops sufficient association to consumers with a business as a source of goods or services in addition to the mark’s linguistic primary meaning. In recent years, scholars have proposed that secondary meaning plays an even more central role in trademark law than it already does. Yet enshrining secondary meaning in the law undermines the ultimate goals of trademark law: promoting fair competition and protecting consumers. The dangers of enshrining secondary meaning include the problematic doctrine that has built up to assess it or …
Behavioral Lessons For Antitrust Enforcement, Avishalom Tor
Behavioral Lessons For Antitrust Enforcement, Avishalom Tor
Faculty Lectures and Presentations
These are lecture slides to accompany a virtual lecture.
Avishalom Tor, professor and director of the Research Program on Law and Market Behavior at Notre Dame Law School, delivered this lecture to lawyers and economists of the Department of Justice’s antitrust division in Washington D.C. and throughout the country in the summer of 2020.
The lecture provides a systematic review of the lessons empirical behavioral findings offer to antitrust law, enforcement, and policy. Professor Tor introduces key findings of behavioral antitrust and explores their implications for doctrine and enforcement across the field, in areas ranging from horizontal restraints, through …
Back To The Future: Rediscovering Equitable Discretion In Trademark Cases, Mark P. Mckenna
Back To The Future: Rediscovering Equitable Discretion In Trademark Cases, Mark P. Mckenna
Journal Articles
Courts in recent years have increasingly made blunt use of their equitable powers in trademark cases. Rather than limiting the scope of injunctive relief so as to protect the interests of a mark owner while respecting the legitimate interests of third parties and of consumers, courts in most cases have viewed injunctive relief in binary terms. This is unfortunate, because greater willingness to tailor injunctive relief could go a long way to mitigating some of the most pernicious effects of trademark law’s modern expansion. This Essay urges courts to reverse this trend towards crude injunctive relief, and to re-embrace their …