Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
Parody In Trademark Law: Dumb Starbucks Makes Trademark Law Look Dumb, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 143 (2015), Deborah Kemp, Lynn Forsythe, Ida Jones
Parody In Trademark Law: Dumb Starbucks Makes Trademark Law Look Dumb, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 143 (2015), Deborah Kemp, Lynn Forsythe, Ida Jones
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Comedian Nathan Fielder opened a coffee shop which looked like a Starbucks, but he put the word “dumb” in front of the Starbucks name. Fielder justified his behavior based on the argument that he had created a parody of Starbucks. This article explores when a parody of a trademark may be entitled to protection under the First Amendment. If so, what are the limits of this protection, especially when a trademark holder argues that the parody is diluting his or her trademark by either blurring or tarnishment? The article analyzes federal statutes and judicial decisions. It concludes with recommendations to …
The Conflict Between An Athlete’S Right Of Publicity And The First Amendment, 15 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 117 (2015), Edward Kuester
The Conflict Between An Athlete’S Right Of Publicity And The First Amendment, 15 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 117 (2015), Edward Kuester
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The recent rise of fantasy sports has created a conflict between an athlete’s right of publicity and the First Amendment of the Constitution. The legal question being discussed is whether athletes have a right of publicity in their identity, specifically their performance statistics and biographical information. If a right of publicity violation does exist, courts will have to determine whether a fantasy provider’s First Amendment privilege can prevail against an athlete’s publicity rights. This comment examines recent litigation surrounding athletes’ identities and the problems courts have in balancing the conflict between an athlete’s right of publicity and the First Amendment. …
Troubleshooting Legal Malfunction: Lexmark And Consumer Standing Under The Lanham Act, 48 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2015), Jeremy Rovinsky
Troubleshooting Legal Malfunction: Lexmark And Consumer Standing Under The Lanham Act, 48 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2015), Jeremy Rovinsky
UIC Law Review
This article suggests that the recent Lexmark decision, while resolving the confusion relating to Lanham Act standing requirements, does nothing to protect those most vulnerable—the consumers. Congress must explicitly declare that consumers have standing under the Lanham Act when they have been damaged by purchasing falsely represented goods or services. Section I provides a history of the Lanham Act and illustrates how different courts initially allowed and then precluded consumers from bringing claims under Section 43(a)’s “any person” language. Section II critiques the opinions that have found no consumer standing, including the Supreme Court’s recent Lexmark decision. Section III highlights …
Bad News Birkins: Counterfeit In Luxury Brands, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 249 (2015), Colleen Jordan Orscheln
Bad News Birkins: Counterfeit In Luxury Brands, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 249 (2015), Colleen Jordan Orscheln
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The luxury fashion industry spends millions of dollars each year fighting counterfeits, yet a fake Louis Vuitton bag is easily purchased on street corners around the world. Proponents of the counterfeits argue that the fakes translate to advertising for the brands, while the luxury brands argue that it damages the future of their brand. The counterfeit market has been linked to child labor, human trafficking, organized crime, and some terrorist groups. The current federal civil and criminal statutes exclude purchasers from prosecution and instead focus on the distributors of the goods. This comment proposes the strengthening of these laws by …
Who Owns Ellen's Oscar Selfie? Deciphering Rights Of Attribution Concerning User Generated Content On Social Media, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 564 (2015), Michael Reed
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
One of the most memorable moments of the 2014 Academy Awards was Ellen DeGeneres’s famous selfie taken with Bradley Cooper, Meryl Streep, and other famous friends. This so-called “Oscar Selfie” has been estimated to be worth millions of advertising dollars for the event’s sponsor, Samsung. DeGeneres’ use of selfies as a promotional tool was novel method of documenting Hollywood’s greatest night which proved an undeniable successful. However, the fact that Bradley Cooper actually captured the Oscar Selfie raises a number of important questions about how user-generated content distributed through social media fits into existing intellectual property law. At the heart …