Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Court Briefs

Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled

No. 17-7035 (Lead Case), 17-7039
American Society for Testing Materials v. Public.Resources.Org, Inc.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

From the Summary of Argument

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. …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, John A. Conway, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 3:14-cv-01849-K
Zenimax Media Inc. v. Oculus VR, LLC

From the Summary of ArgumentPlaintiff’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.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 15-14889
Edward Lewis Tobinick v. Steven Novella

Appeal from the United States Distric Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 9:14-cv-80781-RLR (Hon. Robin L. Rosenber)
[Including the] Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Nov. 30, 2015.

From the Summary of Argument

The District Court correctly determined that the challenged speech of Dr. Steven Novella was not commercial speech for purposes of applying the Lanham Act. Appellant’s argument to the contrary conflates “seeking profit” with “commercial speech.”