Unfair Competition And Uncommon Sense,
2010
Georgetown University Law Center
Unfair Competition And Uncommon Sense, Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This article discusses Mark McKenna’s Testing Modern Trademark Law’s Theory of Harm as an important step forward in challenging trademark expansionism, going back to basics and asking us to assess for truth value several propositions that now seem so self-evident to lawyers and judges as to not require any empirical support at all. Like McKenna, the author believes that if the law looked for the evidence behind present axioms of harm, it would not find much there. McKenna and the author share an interest in empirical evidence on marketing and a desire to bring its insights to trademark law. But …
Process, People, Power And Policy: Empirical Studies Of Civil Procedure And Courts,
2010
Georgetown University Law Center
Process, People, Power And Policy: Empirical Studies Of Civil Procedure And Courts, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Bryant Garth
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This review essay, by Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Dean Bryant Garth, reports on the history and deployment of empirical studies of civil procedure rules, court policies, and legal developments for reforms of court procedures and practices in both the United States and England and Wales. It traces the influence of particular individuals (e.g., Charles Clark in the United States, and Harry Woolf in England) in the use of empirical studies of litigation patterns and court rules to effectuate legal reforms. The essay reviews some particularly contentious issues over time, such as whether there is/was too much or too little litigation, …
If We Don’T Get Civil Gideon: Trying To Make The Best Of The Civil-Justice Market,
2010
Duke Law School
If We Don’T Get Civil Gideon: Trying To Make The Best Of The Civil-Justice Market, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
This article considers what market-oriented or market-regulation approaches might be most practical and helpful in trying to satisfy unmet civil legal-service needs and how much it appears that such approaches may be able to succeed in doing so.
Should A Statement Of Interest Matter?: Judging Executive Branch Foreign Policy Concerns,
2010
University of Georgia School of Law
Should A Statement Of Interest Matter?: Judging Executive Branch Foreign Policy Concerns, Catherine H. Curlet
Georgia Law Review
Since the enactment of the Constitution, scholars have fiercely debated the question of the appropriate balance between the branches of the federal government in matters of foreign affairs. Recently, the Supreme Court set forth some guidelines for striking this balance between the Executive and the Judicial Branches in litigation implicating foreign affairs,yet the guidelines leave much of this debate unresolved. A cross-section of recent appellate court decisions illustrates how lower courts have filled in these gaps when assessing how much deference to give an Executive's Statement of Interest filed in cases concerning foreign affairs. This Note extracts from these cases …
Virtual Contacts In Patent Cases: How Should Internet-Related Contacts Affect The Personal Jurisdiction Analysis?,
2010
The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law
Virtual Contacts In Patent Cases: How Should Internet-Related Contacts Affect The Personal Jurisdiction Analysis?, Megan M. La Belle
Scholarly Articles
In the 1990s, when the Internet was still considered novel, courts struggled with the question of how Internet-related contacts should be treated in the personal jurisdiction analysis. So when Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo DOT Com established an apparently easy-to-apply test for deciding whether a defendant’s virtual contacts are sufficient for personal jurisdiction, many courts embraced it . To date, however, the Federal Circuit has neither adopted nor rejected the Zippo approach, leaving litigants and lower courts in patent cases with little guidance on the issue. Although a recent decision suggests that the Federal Circuit recognizes the limitations of Zippo, it …
Front Loading And Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address The Detrimental Effect Of Iqbal On Civil Rights Cases,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Front Loading And Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address The Detrimental Effect Of Iqbal On Civil Rights Cases, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are trans-substantive, they have a greater detrimental effect on certain substantive claims. In particular, the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading requirement and Rule 12(b)(6)’s dismissal criteria - in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal - sets forth a plausibility pleading standard which makes it more difficult for potentially meritorious civil rights claims alleging intentional discrimination to survive dismissal. Such claims are more vulnerable to dismissal because: plaintiffs alleging intentional discrimination often plead facts consistent with both legal and illegal conduct; discriminatory intent is often difficult, if not impossible, …
Litigation Governance: Taking Accountability Seriously,
2010
Columbia Law School
Litigation Governance: Taking Accountability Seriously, John C. Coffee Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
Both Europe and the United States are rethinking their approach to aggregate litigation. In the United States, class actions have long been organized around an entrepreneurial model that uses economic incentives to align the interest of the class attorney with those of the class. But increasingly, potential class members are preferring exit to voice, suggesting that the advantages of the U.S. model may have been overstated. In contrast, Europe has long resisted the United States's entrepreneurial model, and the contemporary debate in Europe centers on whether certain elements of the U.S. model – namely, opt-out class actions, contingent fees, and …
