Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Trademark

Discipline
Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 331 - 360 of 600

Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law

Securing Global Trademark Exceptions: Why The United States Should Negotiate Mandatory Exceptions Into Future International Bilateral Agreements, Brian S. Kaunelis Jun 2010

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.


Panel Ii: The Global Contours Of Ip Protection For Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, And Product Configuration, Wendy J. Gordon, Orit Fischman Afori, Mark Janis, Susan Scafidi, Jonathan Moskin Apr 2010

Panel Ii: The Global Contours Of Ip Protection For Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, And Product Configuration, Wendy J. Gordon, Orit Fischman Afori, Mark Janis, Susan Scafidi, 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. Ix, Tab 41 - Spaziano Declaration, Jennifer Spaziano Mar 2010

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 39 - Bill Lloyd Declaration (Google Ad Support Team Lead), Bill Lloyd Mar 2010

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. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 76 - Wojcicki Deposition (Google Vice-President Product Management), Susan Wojcicki Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Mar 2010

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 Feb 2010

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 Feb 2010

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 Feb 2010

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. 65 - Deposition Of Cory Louie (Google Senior Risk Investigator), Cory Louie Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 65 - Deposition Of Cory Louie (Google Senior Risk Investigator), Cory Louie

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 Feb 2010

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?


Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. D - Chiang Deposition (Google Adwords Product Manager), Edward Chiang Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. D - Chiang Deposition (Google Adwords Product Manager), Edward Chiang

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. 55 - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen Feb 2010

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 55 - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen

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. C - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. C - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen

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. 36 - Deposition Of Nino Ninov (Rosetta Stone Vice President - Strategic Research And Analysis), Nino Ninov Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 36 - Deposition Of Nino Ninov (Rosetta Stone Vice President - Strategic Research And Analysis), Nino Ninov

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. 63 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Stone Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 63 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Stone Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh

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. 66 - Van Leigh Deposition (Rosetta Online Marketing Director), Van Leigh Feb 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 66 - Van Leigh Deposition (Rosetta Online Marketing Director), Van Leigh

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 39 - Ex. 3 - Google's Trademark Complaint Policy, Google Jan 2010

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Ex. 3 - Google's Trademark Complaint Policy, Google

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?


A Cause Of Action For "Passing Off/Associational Marketing", Margreth Barrett Jan 2010

A Cause Of Action For "Passing Off/Associational Marketing", Margreth Barrett

IP Theory

The Trademark Scholars Roundtable participants discussed a wide range of approaches to understanding and limiting the ever-increasing sprawl of trademark rights. It was a productive and stimulating discussion. In this essay, I would like to combine some of my own ideas with points and suggestions made by the other participants, to sketch out a possible judicial approach to regulating the sprawl. Before discussing a potential solution, however, it is important to understand the nature of the problem, and some of its primary causes.

Section I will discuss the problem and set the stage for my proposal. Section II will then …