Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Squeezing The Juice® Out Of The Washington Redskins®: Intellectual Property Rights In "Scandalous" And "Disparaging" Trademarks After Harjo V. Pro-Football Inc., Cameron Smith
Washington Law Review
In Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelled the federally registered trademarks THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS, REDSKINS, and REDSKINETIES after finding them to be disparaging matter under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. Pro-Football has appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This Note argues that Harjo's adoption of the "substantial composite" standard for analyzing disparaging trademarks potentially ignores the majority of the implicated group members' viewpoints and promotes section 2(a) trademark cancellations. In addition, the liberal standing requirements for opposition and cancellation proceedings combined with Harlo's disparagement doctrine …
The Attibution Right In The United States: Caught In The Crossfire Between Copyright And Section 43(A), Roberta Rosenthal Kwall
The Attibution Right In The United States: Caught In The Crossfire Between Copyright And Section 43(A), Roberta Rosenthal Kwall
Washington Law Review
The human impulse for attribution symbolizes the linkage between an author and her creative work. In many countries, authors are afforded a right of attribution as part of a broader doctrine known as moral rights. The United States, however, does not adequately protect moral rights. This Article focuses exclusively on the right of attribution as one component of the moral rights doctrine. Initially, it examines the connection between copyright law and the right of attribution and establishes the inadequacy of the current copyright law as a means of safeguarding the right of attribution. Next, it addresses why section 43(a) of …
Just Who Is The Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art? Patent Law's Mysterious Personage, Joseph P. Meara
Just Who Is The Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art? Patent Law's Mysterious Personage, Joseph P. Meara
Washington Law Review
Various patent validity and infringement questions are decided against the standard of the "person having ordinary skill in the art" (Phosita). For example, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), an invention must be nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be granted a patent. In this context, the Federal Circuit has set out six factors for measuring the level of skill of Phosita, yet the court has provided remarkably little guidance in their use and their relationship to nonobviousness. This situation has led to confusion and difficulties among courts trying to assess Phosita's skill. This Comment argues that …