Law Commons^™

Mark Mckenna Quoted In Usa Today Article Starbucks Responds To Dumb Starbucks In La, February 10, 2014, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Mark McKenna quoted in USA Today article Starbucks responds to Dumb Starbucks in LA by Jolie Lee February 10, 2014. "My gut tells me a court would be bothered by how much of the Starbucks trademark was used. It's not just the word but they also made the store look just like it," McKenna said in an interview with USA TODAY Network.

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

Colin Kaepernick Defends Move To Protect Personal Brand (Quotes: Mark Mckenna) Usa Today - February 4, 2013, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Colin Kaepernick defends move to protect personal brand article by Jeffrey Martin on USA Today quotes Mark McKenna, February 4, 2013.

"Sometimes, there is some money to be made from capitalizing on a hot theme," said Mark McKenna, a professor at Notre Dame School of Law specializing in intellectual property, via e-mail. "That moment is, for most of your examples, pretty fleeting – think 'Linsanity.' But it's possible it is enough to justify some interest.

"But in the cases in which the phrases refer to a particular individual, sometimes they're less concerned with using the term themselves to make money …

Testing Modern Trademark Law's Theory Of Harm, Mark Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Modern scholarship takes a decidedly negative view of trademark law. Commentators rail against doctrinal innovations like dilution and initial interest confusion. They clamor for clearer and broader defenses. And they plead for greater First Amendment scrutiny of various applications of trademark law. But beneath all of this criticism lies overwhelming agreement that consumer confusion is harmful. This easy acceptance of the harmfulness of confusion is a problem because it operates at too high a level of generality, ignoring important differences between types of relationships about which consumers might be confused. Failure to differentiate between these different relationships has enabled trademark …

Teaching Trademark Theory Through The Lens Of Distinctiveness, Mark P. Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

This contribution to the annual teaching edition of the Saint Louis University Law Journal encourages teachers to begin trademark law courses using the concept of distinctiveness as a vehicle for articulating producer and consumer perspectives in trademark law. Viewing the law through these sometimes different perspectives helps in approaching a variety of doctrines in trademark law, and both perspectives are relatively easy to grasp in the context of distinctiveness.

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.

Trademark Use And The Problem Of Source, Mark P. Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

This Article mediates a scholarly debate regarding the existence and desirability of a "trademark use" doctrine. It argues that trademark use is a predicate of liability under the Lanham Act, but those who advocate treating trademark use as a threshold question put much more weight on that concept than it can bear. Courts cannot consistently apply trademark use as a distinct element of the plaintiff's prima facie case because trademark use can be determined only from the perspective of consumers. Specifically, courts can determine whether a defendant has made trademark use of a plaintiff's mark only by asking whether consumers …

The Right Of Publicity And Autonomous Self-Definition, Mark P. Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Legal protection against unauthorized commercial uses of an individual's identity has grown significantly over the last fifty years as it has relentlessly pursued economic value. It was forced to focus on value because a false distinction between the harms suffered by private citizens and celebrities seemingly left celebrities without a privacy claim for commercial use of their identities. But the normative case for awarding individuals the economic value of their identity is weak, since celebrities do not need additional incentive to invest in either their native skill or in developing a persona. Still, while the prevailing justification is inadequate, as …

Back To The Future: Rediscovering Equitable Discretion In Trademark Cases, Mark P. Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

Courts in recent years have increasingly made blunt use of their equitable powers in trademark cases. Rather than limiting the scope of injunctive relief so as to protect the interests of a mark owner while respecting the legitimate interests of third parties and of consumers, courts in most cases have viewed injunctive relief in binary terms. This is unfortunate, because greater willingness to tailor injunctive relief could go a long way to mitigating some of the most pernicious effects of trademark law’s modern expansion. This Essay urges courts to reverse this trend towards crude injunctive relief, and to re-embrace their …