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 …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, Ryan A. Shores, William J. Haun

Court Briefs

“[I]n a complex society and an era of pervasive governmental regulation, defining the proper realm for free exercise can be difficult.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781, 2785 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)2 addresses that difficulty by harmonizing religious freedom and the interests of third parties. RFRA will not exempt free exercise from a law’s command simply because the law substantially burdens religion—nor will it deny a religious exemption simply because the exemption would affect a third party.

Brief Of Law Professors Bruce P. Frohnen, Robert P. George, Alan J. Meese, Michael P. Moreland, Nathan B. Oman, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Rodney K. Smith, Steven D. Smith, And O. Carter Snead As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, O. Carter Snead, Robert P. George, Alan J. Meese, Michael P. Moreland, Nathan B. Oman, Michael` Stokes Paulsen`, Rodney K. Smith, Steven D. Smith

Court Briefs

Suppose a federal law required government officials to enter a Catholic church and use church property to distribute contraceptives and abortifacients over church’s objection. Such a law would surely burden the church’s religion, even if the government paid for the objectionable medications and compensated the church for the use of its resources. By commandeering church property, such a law would force the church to be complicit in activity to which it has serious religious objections

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellee National Football League, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet

Court Briefs

Based on the undisputed facts, the NFL’s films in this case are noncommercial speech; their profit-seeking and brand-building nature are standard features of noncommercial speech. Truthful, nondefamatory noncommercial speech deserves full First Amendment protection, and there is no justification for allowing Appellants to control speech about them in this case.

Separately, Appellants’ right of publicity claims are preempted by the Copyright Act, which allows owners of copyrighted works to exploit those works by reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance—precisely the conduct at issue here.

Finally, Appellants’ trademark claims are also precluded by the First Amendment, given that …