Law Commons^™

Real-Life Protection For Fictional Trademarks, Benjamin M. Arrow

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Definite Claim On Claim Indefiniteness: An Empirical Study Of Definiteness Cases Of The Past Decade With A Focus On The Federal Circuit And The Insolubly Ambiguous Standard, Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This empirical study of patent claim definiteness cases of the past decade makes several novel findings including: (1) slightly more than half of final Federal Circuit definiteness cases hold the asserted claims not indefinite; (2) the percentage of non-Federal Circuit definiteness cases holding claims not indefinite increased approximately 60 percentage points over the ten-year period focused on in this analysis;(3) the Federal Circuit more often held chemical claims not indefinite, but electrical claims indefinite; and (4) the Federal Circuit more often held claims with term clarity issues not indefinite, but claims with means-plus-function issues indefinite. These differences partially result from …

An Offensive Weapon?: An Empirical Analysis Of The 'Sword' Of State Sovereign Immunity In State-Owned Patents, Tejas N. Narechania

Tejas N. Narechania

Don't Be Cruel: Scope Of Parody Curtailed In Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. V. Capece, Deborah Wright

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Note explores how the Fifth Circuit limited the legal boundaries of parody in the context of trademark law. Section II provides a background of trademark law and how parody fits into a court's determination as to whether infringement has occurred. Section III presents the facts and procedural history of the case, including the district court's analysis. In Section IV, this Note examines how the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal approached the application of parody in the trademark context. Finally, Section V discusses the severe limitation on the legal use of parody set forth by the Fifth Circuit, and offers …

Intellectual Property Law - Blockbuster Videos Inc. V. City Of Tempe, Mary L. Shapiro

Golden Gate University Law Review

In a matter of first impression, the United Sates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of Tempe, considered whether section 1121(b) of the Lanham Act preempts a municipality's authority to require the alteration of a federally registered trademark. Based on the plain language of the statute, the court held that a local entity may not require the alteration of a trademark to enforce a zoning ordinance, though it may prohibit the display of the trademark.

The Time And Place For "Technology-Shifting" Rights, Max Stul Oppenheimer

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Intellectual property policy requires balance between the goal of motivating innovation and the need to prevent that motivation from stifling further innovation. The constitutional grant of congressional power to motivate innovation by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries is qualified by the requirement that congressional enactments under the Intellectual Property Clause promote progress. The Supreme Court has already recognized a time-shifting exception to the intellectual property rights of innovators and lower courts have recognized a place-shifting exception. It is now the time and place for a general technology-shifting exception …

Possessing Trademarks: Can Blackstone Or Locke Apply To Fast Food, Grocery Stores, And Virtual Sex Toys?, Jesse R. Dill

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Trademark law has evolved extensively over time and is justified today for different reasons than when American law first recognized it. Scholars today question whether trademarks should now be accepted as a form of real property. Two examples of trademark problems in the global economy demonstrate that the time has come for marks to be recognized as property. Whether business entities are entering new territories or consumers are crossing borders to new jurisdictions with greater ease than ever before, trademark must adapt to the demands of modern commercial competitors. This Comment takes the position that these demands require treating trademarks …

Actual Or Hypothetical: Determining The Proper Test For Trademark Licensee Rights In Bankruptcy, Laura D. Steele

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

As trademark rights become an increasingly valuable asset in Chapter 11 reorganizations, it is critical for Congress and the courts to clarify how trademarks will be treated in bankruptcy, particularly where the debtor is a trademark licensee. Without clarity, Chapter 11 reorganization may not be a viable option. This Comment urges that trademark licensees should not be stripped of a license simply because the licensee enters bankruptcy. Rather, where a licensee intends only to continue using an existing license under the terms of the existing agreement with the licensor, the licensee's use of that license should be uninterrupted during reorganization. …

Securing Global Trademark Exceptions: Why The United States Should Negotiate Mandatory Exceptions Into Future International Bilateral Agreements, Brian S. Kaunelis

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In December 2007, the European Union and the CARIFORUM States concluded a bilateral economic partnership agreement that included a mandatory fair use exception to trademark owners' rights. The EC-CARIFORUM Agreement is the first agreement that mandates the inclusion of Article 17 of the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights and requires an exception to trademark rights. The push to balance international trademark owners' rights has begun, and this Note will detail why the United States should follow the European Union's lead and negotiate mandatory trademark exceptions into future bilateral agreements.

Convergence And Incongruence: Trademark Law And Icann’S Introduction Of New Generic Top-Level Domains, Christine Haight Farley

Christine Haight Farley

This paper demonstrates how problematic convergences between Internet technology, the demands of a burgeoning e-market and trademark laws have created myriad issues in international governance of domain names. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the body that governs internet's infrastructure, recently approved a new policy that would allow it to accept applications for additional generic top-level domains (gTLDs). What ICANN contemplates is a uniform system to approve generic top level domains that is expected to have profound implications. Under this new plan anyone can apply for a new gTLD at any time and it could be literally …

The Global Contours Of Ip Protection For Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, And Product Configuration, Wendy J. Gordon, Orit Fischman Afori, Mark Janis, Jonathan Moskin

Faculty Scholarship

Before beginning, let me mention that I will confine myself to a limited number of arenas. Thus, for example, I'm not going to discuss design patents, which will be the focus of another speaker's remarks. I will also not discuss the doctrine of aesthetic functionality. My primary goal will be to compare trademark's doctrine of utilitarian "functionality" with copyright's domain of "separability," and to show how for at least two circuit court opinions, the two doctrines may be converging. I hope to stimulate discussion of whether such convergence would be a good idea.

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Bill Lloyd Declaration (Google Ad Support Team Lead), Bill Lloyd

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Spaziano Declaration, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 76 - Wojcicki Deposition (Google Vice-President Product Management), Susan Wojcicki

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. R - Wojcicki Deposition (Google Vice-President Product Management), Susan Wojcicki

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 67 - Lloyd Deposition (Google Trademark Assistant), Bill Lloyd

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

No abstract provided.

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 70 - Novaczyk Deposition (Rosetta Consumer Marketing Analytics), Thomas Novaczyk

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. N - Lloyd Deposition (Google Ad Support Team Lead), Bill Lloyd

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 53 - Calhoun Deposition (Rosetta Enforcement Manager), Jason Calhoun

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. K - Hagan Deposition (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 30 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 60 - Eichmann Deposition (Rosetta Coo), Eric Eichmann

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 42 - Ex. 6 - Eric Eichmann Deposition (Rosetta Chief Operating Officer), Eric Eichmann

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 55 - Deposition Of Eric Eichmann (Rosetta Stone Chief Operating Officer), Eric Eichmann

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

The Role Of The Non-Functionality Requirement In Design Law, Orit Fischman Afori

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Panel Ii: The Global Contours Of Ip Protection For Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, And Product Configuration, Orit Fischman Afori, Wendy J. Gordon, Mark Janis, Jonathan Moskin

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 59 - Dulitz Deposition (Google Adwords Pm), Daniel Dulitz

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. G - Dulitz Deposition (Google Adwords Project Manager), Daniel Dulitz

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 72 - Ramsey Deposition (Rosetta Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 68 - Deposition Of John Ramsey (Rosetta Stone Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?