Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

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 …

Fault Lines In Trademark Default Judgments, David S. Welkowitz

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Where There's A Will, There's A Way: Reconciling Theories Of Willful Infringement And Disgorgement Damages In Trademark Law, Rachel Anne Zisek

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Clear And Convincing Disparagement: An Argument For A Higher Evidentiary Standard For When The T.T.A.B. Considers Cancelling A Well-Known, Tenured Trademark, John C. Thomas Iii

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Right To Say, "I Didn't Write That": Creating A Cause Of Action To Combat False Attribution Of Authorship On The Internet, Kathleen Brennan Hicks

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Cutting Out The Middleman: Why "Look And Feel" Should Be Ignored In Trade Dress Law, Nicholas Dimarino

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note discusses the background and elements of general trade dress law. Part II discusses the narrower issue of "look and feel" in the context of websites and outlines how courts have currently addressed the "look and feel" issue. Part III proposes that courts ignore the artificial "look and feel" distinction and instead apply normal trade dress analyses and elements. This solution, which requires that courts adhere to a workable standard that serves the underlying purpose of trade dress law, allows recognition of the distinctive characteristics of website trade dress claims, while reducing the risk of …

The Cost Of Confusion: The Paradox Of Trademarked Pharmaceuticals, Hannah Brennan

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The United States spends nearly $1,000 per person annually on drugs—forty percent more than the next highest spender, Canada, and more than twice the amount France and Germany spend. Although myriad factors contribute to high drug spending in the United States, intellectual property law plays a crucial and well-documented role in inhibiting access to cheaper, generic medications. Yet, for the most part, the discussion of the relationship between intellectual property law and drug spending has centered on patent protection. Recently, however, a few researchers have turned their attention to a different avenue of exclusivity—trademark law. New studies suggest that pharmaceutical …

Disparaging Trademarks: Who Matters, Jasmine Abdel-Khalik

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

For more than a century, non-majority groups have protested the use of trademarks comprised of or containing terms referencing the group—albeit for various reasons. Under the 1946 Lanham Act, Congress added a prohibition against registering disparaging trademarks, which could offer protection to non-majority groups targeted by the use of trademarks offensive to members of the group. The prohibition remained relatively unclear, however, and rarely applied in that context until a group of Native Americans petitioned to cancel the Washington NFL team’s trademarks as either scandalous, offensive to the general population, or disparaging, offensive to the referenced group. In clarifying the …

Gray Market Goods Produced By Foreign Affiliates Of The U.S. Trademark Owner: Should The Lanham Act Provide A Remedy?, Steven M. Auvil

Akron Law Review

I shall argue that, with limited exceptions, the problem posed by genuine gray market imports from an affiliated source is not a trademark problem per se, and as such federal relief must come from Congress in the form of sui generis legislation. First, I shall briefly examine the historical background of this problem and discuss the debate leading up to the K Mart decision. Second, I shall discuss the nature of the trademark right, provisions under the Lanham Act that safeguard that right and several illustrative gray market cases decided thereunder. Third, I shall discuss the relationship between the trademark …

Victor Can Keep His Little Secret Unless Victoria's Secret Is Actually Harmed, Shafeek Seddiq

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Licensing Of Intellectual Property Rights, Mark Joelson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Registering Offense: The Prohibition Of Slurs As Trademarks, Christine Farley

Contributions to Books

Since 1967, Pro-Football has registered six marks that include the term “redskins,” a derogatory racial epithet that refers to Native Americans. The use of disparaging marks dates back to the 19th century when brands commercialized racial stereotypes, such as Aunt Jemima. Today, offensive marks, including those that ridicule race, ethnicity, gender and religion are proliferating prompting the question of what role trademark law plays in protecting the interests of diverse communities. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act prohibits the registration of marks that consist of matter that may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute any person, institution, or belief. …

Commercial Speech, Commercial Use, And The Intellectual Property Quagmire, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

The commercial speech doctrine in First Amendment jurisprudence has frequently been criticized and is recognized as a highly contested, problematic and shifting landscape. Despite the compelling critique within constitutional law scholarship more broadly, Intellectual Property (“IP”) law has not only embraced the differential treatment of commercial speech, but has done so in ways that disfavor a much broader swath of speech than traditional commercial speech doctrine allows. One of the challenges for courts, litigants, and scholars alike is that the term “commercial” is used to mean multiple things, even within the same body of IP law. In this Article, I …