Law Commons^™

Mark Mckenna Was Quoted Ap Story Jury Selection Begins In Apple-Samsung Case On March 31, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Mark McKenna was quoted AP story Jury selection begins in Apple-Samsung case on March 31 “There’s a widespread suspicion that lots of the kinds of software patents at issue are written in ways that cover more ground than what Apple or any other tech firm actually invented,” Notre Dame law professor Mark McKenna said. “Overly broad patents allow companies to block competition.”

Is "Dumb Starbucks" Legal? Mark Mckenna Talks To Business Insider, February 10, 2014., Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Mark McKenna was quoted in the Business insider article by Erin Fuchs. "This is a fairly bold use of the Starbucks logo," Notre Dame law professor Mark McKennatold me. "What they've done is they've taken that word 'dumb' and they have basically copied everything." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/is-dumb-starbucks-legal-2014-2#ixzz2sxEeHa00

Op-Ed: Don’T Stop At Sopa, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Op-ed in Slate.com by Mark McKenna. SOPA and PIPA are (almost) dead? Now can we talk about the law that already exists?

"Kohler Co. Steamed Over Arizona Firm’S Name Salon School Makes Change To Avoid Trademark Suit" (Quotes: Mark P. Mckenna) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Kohler Co. steamed over Arizona firm’s name Salon school makes change to avoid trademark suit by Rick Romell of the Journal Sentinel quotes Mark P. McKenna in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Jan. 24, 2012.

People have no hard and fast right to use their name on their business if someone else already has trademarked it, said Durst and two academic experts - Mark McKenna of the University of Notre Dame Law School and J. Thomas McCarthy, senior professor at the University of San Francisco.

McKenna, however, called Kohler Co.'s assertions "a pretty aggressive use of their trademark rights."

He said …

Court: Reselling Books Bought Abroad Isn't A Copyright Violation - (Quotes: Mark Mckenna), Npr’S Morning Edition, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Court: Reselling Books Bought Abroad Isn't A Copyright Violation interview by Dan Bobkoff quotes Mark McKenna, NPR’s Morning Edition March 20, 2013 DAN BOBKOFF, BYLINE: Once you buy a book in the U.S., you're free to lend it, throw it away or sell it. This is called the First Sale Doctrine, says law professor Mark McKenna of Notre Dame. MARK MCKENNA: This is why there are used book stores. BOBKOFF: But the question at stake in this case was whether that still applies to products sold and made in another country. Grad student Supap(ph) Kirksang(ph) made tens of thousands of …

Mark Mckenna Quoted In Usa Today Article Apple Gets $290m In Samsung Patent Dispute, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Mark McKenna was quoted in the USA Today article Apple gets $290 million in Samsung patent dispute by Scott Martin. "Today's damage award was much larger than Samsung had argued for, but still significantly less than the $400 million vacated by Judge Koh after the first trial," said Mark McKenna, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Trademark Law's Faux Federalism, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Federal and state trademark laws regulate concurrently: The Lanham Act does not preempt state law, and in fact many states have statutorily and/or judicially developed trademark or unfair competition laws of their own. This state of affairs, which is now well-accepted even if it has not always been uncontroversial, distinguishes trademark law from patent and copyright law, since federal patent and copyright statutes preempt state law much more broadly. The Patent Act entirely preempts state law with respect to non-secret inventions and the 1976 Copyright Act preempts state copyright law with respect to all works fixed in a tangible medium …

What's The Frequency, Kenneth? Channeling Doctrines In Trademark Law, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

This paper was published as a chapter in Intellectual Property and Information Wealth (Peter Yu, ed., Praeger 2007). The chapter describes several doctrines that courts have developed to limit the scope of trademark protection where there is a risk of interference with the patent or copyright schemes. It also suggests that courts have in some cases overemphasized the subject matter of protection and underemphasized parties' ability to use trademark law to capture the types of economic benefits for which patent and copyright protection are presumed necessary.