Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

The Anonymity Heuristic: How Surnames Stop Identifying People When They Become Trademarks, Russell W. Jacobs

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article explores the following question central to trademark law: if a homograph has both a surname and a trademark interpretation will consumers consider those interpretations as intrinsically overlapping or the surname and trademark as completely separate and unrelated words? While trademark jurisprudence typically has approached this question from a legal perspective or with assumptions about consumer behavior, this Article builds on the Law and Behavioral Science approach to legal scholarship by drawing from the fields of psychology, linguistics, economics, anthropology, sociology, and marketing.

The Article concludes that consumers will regard the two interpretations as separate and unrelated, processing surname …

Thou Shalt Not Steele: Reexamining The Extraterritorial Reach Of The Lanham Act, James C. Gracey

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

US courts have applied domestic trademark law to actions taken outside of the United States's borders for years, but the US Supreme Court recently revamped the presumption against extraterritoriality, a canon of statutory interpretation. The presumption against extraterritoriality promotes a judicial means of respecting the sovereignty of foreign states by disallowing the application of domestic law to foreign acts. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the Lanham Act, the United States's domestic trademark law, to have extraterritorial reach in Bulova Watch Co. v. Steele. This Note traces the recent evolution and strengthening of the presumption before analyzing how circuit courts have …

Merging Offensive-Speech Cases With Viewpoint-Discrimination Principles: The Immediate Impact Of Matal V. Tam On Two Strands Of First Amendment Jurisprudence, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines flaws with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam that equated giving offense with viewpoint discrimination. Already, the Court’s language in Tam that “giving offense is a viewpoint” is being cited by multiple lower courts. This Article argues, however, that giving offense is not synonymous with viewpoint discrimination. This Article contends that the Court in Tam conflated two distinct strands of First Amendment jurisprudence—namely, its offensive-speech cases with principles against viewpoint discrimination. The Article proposes two possible paths forward to help courts better clarify when a case such as Tam should be analyzed as …