cyckV4

Recommendations

Info

216 DEFENSES TO TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: FAIR & NOMINATIVE USE is only when a plaintiff has shown likely confusion by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant could have any need of an affirmative defense, but under Lasting’s theory the defense would be foreclosed in such a case. “[I]t defies logic to argue that a defense may not be asserted in the only situation where it even becomes relevant.” Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp., 110 F.3d, at 243. Nor would it make sense to provide an affirmative defense of no confusion plus good faith, when merely rebutting the plaintiff’s case on confusion would entitle the defendant to judgment, good faith or not. . . . Since the burden of proving likelihood of confusion rests with the plaintiff, and the fair use defendant has no free-standing need to show confusion unlikely, it follows (contrary to the Court of Appeals’s view) that some possibility of consumer confusion must be compatible with fair use, and so it is. The common law’s tolerance of a certain degree of confusion on the part of consumers followed from the very fact that in cases like this one an originally descriptive term was selected to be used as a mark, not to mention the undesirability of allowing anyone to obtain a complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first. The Lanham Act adopts a similar leniency, there being no indication that the statute was meant to deprive commercial speakers of the ordinary utility of descriptive words. “If any confusion results, that is a risk the plaintiff accepted when it decided to identify its product with a mark that uses a well known descriptive phrase.” Cosmetically Sealed Industries, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond’s USA Co., 125 F.3d at 30. See also Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 201 (1985) (noting safeguards in Lanham Act to prevent commercial monopolization of language); Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 70 F.3d 267, 269 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting importance of “protect[ing] the right of society at large to use words or images in their primary descriptive sense”). This right to describe is the reason that descriptive terms qualify for registration as trademarks only after taking on secondary meaning as “distinctive of the applicant’s goods,” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), with the registrant getting an exclusive right not in the original, descriptive sense, but only in the secondary one associated with the markholder’s goods. III In sum, a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b), while the defendant has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion in raising the affirmative defense that a term is used descriptively, not as a mark, fairly, and in good faith, § 1115(b)(4). Because we read the Court of Appeals as requiring KP to shoulder a burden on the issue of confusion, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Questions: 1.) The Ninth Circuit thought that the fair use defense was subject to the limitation that the defendant must show that the use is not likely to confuse the consuming public. It would seem they have a strong argument on their side. Is the purpose of trademark law not to avoid the likelihood of consumer confusion? Why does the Supreme Court disagree? 2.) In intellectual property, as elsewhere in the law, burdens of proof are all important, and the way they are set up can tell us much about the goals of the statutory scheme. Explain what the Court means when it says: Put another way, it is only when a plaintiff has shown likely confusion
Defenses to Trademark Infringement: Fair & Nominative Use 217 by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant could have any need of an affirmative defense, but under Lasting’s theory the defense would be foreclosed in such a case. New Kids on the Block v. New America Pub., Inc. 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge. The individual plaintiffs perform professionally as The New Kids on the Block, reputedly one of today’s hottest musical acts. This case requires us to weigh their rights in that name against the rights of others to use it in identifying the New Kids as the subjects of public opinion polls. Background No longer are entertainers limited to their craft in marketing themselves to the public. This is the age of the multi-media publicity blitzkrieg: Trading on their popularity, many entertainers hawk posters, T-shirts, badges, coffee mugs and the like—handsomely supplementing their incomes while boosting their public images. The New Kids are no exception; the record in this case indicates there are more than 500 products or services bearing the New Kids trademark. Among these are services taking advantage of a recent development in telecommunications: 900 area code numbers, where the caller is charged a fee, a portion of which is paid to the call recipient. Fans can call various New Kids 900 numbers to listen to the New Kids talk about themselves, to listen to other fans talk about the New Kids, or to leave messages for the New Kids and other fans. The defendants, two newspapers of national circulation, conducted separate polls of their readers seeking an answer to a pressing question: Which one of the New Kids is the most popular? USA Today’s announcement contained a picture of the New Kids and asked, “Who’s the best on the block?” The announcement listed a 900 number for voting, noted that “any USA Today profits from this phone line will go to charity,” and closed with the following: New Kids on the Block are pop’s hottest group. Which of the five is your fave? Or are they a turn off? . . . Each call costs 50 cents. Results in Friday’s Life section. The Star’s announcement, under a picture of the New Kids, went to the heart of the matter: “Now which kid is the sexiest?” The announcement, which appeared in the middle of a page containing a story on a New Kids concert, also stated: Which of the New Kids on the Block would you most like to move next door? STAR wants to know which cool New Kid is the hottest with our readers. Readers were directed to a 900 number to register their votes; each call cost 95 cents per minute. Fearing that the two newspapers were undermining their hegemony over their fans, the New Kids filed a shotgun complaint in federal court raising no fewer than ten claims: (1) common law trademark infringement; (2) Lanham Act false advertising; (3) Lanham Act false designation of origin; (4) Lanham Act unfair competition; (5) state trade name
Page 2 and 3:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW & THE IN
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii 5.) 1052(e) .
Page 8 and 9:
TABLE OF CONTENTS v d.) A Two-Part
Page 10 and 11:
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii In re Fisher,
Page 12 and 13:
x INTRODUCTION Basic Themes: Three
Page 14 and 15:
xii INTRODUCTION see the Lotus v. B
Page 16 and 17:
CHAPTER ONE The Theories Behind Int
Page 18 and 19:
The Theories Behind Intellectual Pr
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
CHAPTER TWO Intellectual Property &
Page 56 and 57:
Limitations on Congressional Power:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
CHAPTER THREE Intellectual Property
Page 102 and 103:
Intellectual Property & the First A
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
108 TRADEMARK: INTRODUCTION right?
Page 124 and 125:
110 TRADEMARK: INTRODUCTION Compari
Page 126 and 127:
112 TRADEMARK: INTRODUCTION the hol
Page 128 and 129:
114 TRADEMARK: INTRODUCTION out of
Page 130 and 131:
116 TRADEMARK: INTRODUCTION PROBLEM
Page 132 and 133:
118 SUBJECT MATTER: REQUIREMENTS FO
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
154 GROUNDS FOR REFUSING REGISTRATI
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179: 164 GROUNDS FOR REFUSING REGISTRATI
Page 190 and 191: CHAPTER SEVEN Trademark Infringemen
Page 192 and 193: Use in Commerce 179 it purchase not
Page 194 and 195: Use in Commerce 181 associated with
Page 196 and 197: Use in Commerce 183 engaged in the
Page 198 and 199: Use in Commerce 185 A. Trademark In
Page 200 and 201: Likelihood of Confusion 187 Doughne
Page 202 and 203: Likelihood of Confusion 189 closely
Page 204 and 205: Likelihood of Confusion 191 appella
Page 206 and 207: Likelihood of Confusion 193 sophist
Page 208 and 209: Contributory Infringement 195 meani
Page 210 and 211: Contributory Infringement 197 Backg
Page 212 and 213: Contributory Infringement 199 Claim
Page 214 and 215: Contributory Infringement 201 on th
Page 216 and 217: Contributory Infringement 203 B. Di
Page 218 and 219: Contributory Infringement 205 for w
Page 220 and 221: Contributory Infringement 207 an un
Page 222 and 223: Contributory Infringement 209 You h
Page 224 and 225: Contributory Infringement 211 Googl
Page 226 and 227: 214 DEFENSES TO TRADEMARK INFRINGEM
Page 244 and 245: 232 FALSE ADVERTISING, DILUTION &
Page 278 and 279:
266 FALSE ADVERTISING, DILUTION &
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
272 INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT: THEO
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
What does copyright cover? CHAPTER
Page 310 and 311:
What does copyright cover? 299 Imag
Page 312 and 313:
Originality: Independent Creation a
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
The Idea-Expression Distinction 319
Page 332 and 333:
The Idea-Expression Distinction 321
Page 334 and 335:
Merger of Idea and Expression 323 3
Page 336 and 337:
Merger of Idea and Expression 325 W
Page 338 and 339:
Merger of Idea and Expression 327 b
Page 340 and 341:
Merger of Idea and Expression 329 a
Page 342 and 343:
Merger of Idea and Expression 331 t
Page 344 and 345:
Merger of Idea and Expression 333 j
Page 346 and 347:
Merger of Idea and Expression 335 A
Page 348 and 349:
Useful Articles 337 PROBLEM 11-2 [W
Page 350 and 351:
Useful Articles 339 if design eleme
Page 352 and 353:
Useful Articles 341 form, the six-i
Page 354 and 355:
Methods of Operation: Introduction
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Fixation (Copyright Meets Software,
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
CHAPTER TWELVE Copyright’s “Rea
Page 394 and 395:
Exclusive Rights 383 Shakespeare’
Page 396 and 397:
The Idea/Expression Distinction in
Page 398 and 399:
The Idea/Expression Distinction in
Page 400 and 401:
Copyright Meets Computer Software:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Copyright in Characters 407 c.) Cop
Page 420 and 421:
Copyright in Characters 409 charact
Page 422 and 423:
A Two-Part Test for Copyright Infri
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
“De minimis” Copying 417 puppy
Page 430 and 431:
“De minimis” Copying 419 Newton
Page 432 and 433:
“De minimis” Copying 421 Notes
Page 434 and 435:
CHAPTER THIRTEEN Limitations on Exc
Page 436 and 437:
Fair Use, Technology and Contributo
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Unpublished works, “Scoops” and
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Transformative Use, Parody, Comment
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470 and 471:
Page 472 and 473:
Page 474 and 475:
Page 476 and 477:
Fair Use Meets Technology 465 4.) F
Page 478 and 479:
Fair Use Meets Technology 467 succe
Page 480 and 481:
Fair Use Meets Technology 469 rebut
Page 482 and 483:
Fair Use Meets Technology 471 Compu
Page 484 and 485:
Fair Use Meets Technology 473 Becau
Page 486 and 487:
Fair Use Meets Technology 475 she w
Page 488 and 489:
Fair Use Meets Technology 477 owner
Page 490 and 491:
Fair Use Meets Technology 479 corre
Page 492 and 493:
Fair Use Meets Technology 481 or li
Page 494 and 495:
Fair Use Meets Technology 483 reaso
Page 496 and 497:
Fair Use Meets Technology 485 onlin
Page 498 and 499:
A Fair Use Case-Study: Multiple Cop
Page 500 and 501:
Page 502 and 503:
Page 504 and 505:
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
Page 520 and 521:
Page 522 and 523:
Page 524 and 525:
Conclusion 513 annually from Eastla
Page 526 and 527:
CHAPTER FOURTEEN Secondary Liabilit
Page 528 and 529:
The Stakes of Contributory Infringe
Page 530 and 531:
Contributory and Vicarious Infringe
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Inducement Liability 527 power and
Page 540 and 541:
Inducement Liability 529 As the num
Page 542 and 543:
Inducement Liability 531 contributo
Page 544 and 545:
Inducement Liability 533 promoting
Page 546 and 547:
Inducement Liability 535 capability
Page 548 and 549:
Inducement Liability 537 films (e.g
Page 550 and 551:
Inducement Liability 539 114 Yale L
Page 552 and 553:
Safe Harbors: Section 512, Direct I
Page 554 and 555:
Page 556 and 557:
Page 558 and 559:
Page 560 and 561:
Page 562 and 563:
Page 564 and 565:
Page 566 and 567:
Page 568 and 569:
558 ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION: A NEW STATU
Page 570 and 571:
Page 572 and 573:
Page 574 and 575:
Page 576 and 577:
Page 578 and 579:
Page 580 and 581:
Page 582 and 583:
Page 584 and 585:
Page 586 and 587:
Page 588 and 589:
Page 590 and 591:
Page 592 and 593:
Page 594 and 595:
Page 596 and 597:
Page 598 and 599:
Page 600 and 601:
Page 602 and 603:
Page 604 and 605:
Page 606 and 607:
Page 608 and 609:
Page 610 and 611:
Page 612 and 613:
CHAPTER SIXTEEN Copyright & State M
Page 614 and 615:
Introduction 605 (A) any cause of a
Page 616 and 617:
Introduction 607 viewer directly to
Page 618 and 619:
Subject Matter and General Scope: E
Page 620 and 621:
Page 622 and 623:
Page 624 and 625:
Page 626 and 627:
Preemption, Misappropriation & the
Page 628 and 629:
Page 630 and 631:
Page 632 and 633:
Page 634 and 635:
Page 636 and 637:
Page 638 and 639:
Page 640 and 641:
632 PATENTS: HOPES, FEARS, HISTORY
Page 642 and 643:
Page 644 and 645:
Page 646 and 647:
Page 648 and 649:
Page 650 and 651:
Page 652 and 653:
Page 654 and 655:
Page 656 and 657:
Page 658 and 659:
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN Patentable Subject
Page 660 and 661:
Laws of Nature and Natural Phenomen
Page 662 and 663:
Page 664 and 665:
Page 666 and 667:
Page 668 and 669:
Page 670 and 671:
Page 672 and 673:
Page 674 and 675:
Abstract Ideas, Business Methods an
Page 676 and 677:
Page 678 and 679:
Page 680 and 681:
Page 682 and 683:
Page 684 and 685:
Page 686 and 687:
Page 688 and 689:
Page 690 and 691:
Page 692 and 693:
Page 694 and 695:
Page 696 and 697:
Page 698 and 699:
Page 700 and 701:
Page 702 and 703:
Page 704 and 705:
698 REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT PROTECT
Page 706 and 707:
Page 708 and 709:
Page 710 and 711:
Page 712 and 713:
Page 714 and 715:
Page 716 and 717:
Page 718 and 719:
Page 720 and 721:
Page 722 and 723:
Page 724 and 725:
CHAPTER TWENTY Requirements for Pat
Page 726 and 727:
Novelty: Basics 721 recapitulate al
Page 728 and 729:
Novelty: Basics 723 was no evidence
Page 730 and 731:
Novelty: Anticipation of Every Elem
Page 732 and 733:
Page 734 and 735:
Page 736 and 737:
Novelty: Inherency 731 of invalidit
Page 738 and 739:
Novelty: Inherency 733 rationale be
Page 740 and 741:
Statutory Bar: Public Use 735 for a
Page 742 and 743:
Statutory Bar: Public Use 737 adopt
Page 744 and 745:
Statutory Bar: The Experimental Use
Page 746 and 747:
Page 748 and 749:
Page 750 and 751:
746 NON-OBVIOUSNESS Graham v. John
Page 752 and 753:
748 NON-OBVIOUSNESS Jefferson’s p
Page 754 and 755:
750 NON-OBVIOUSNESS be patentable i
Page 756 and 757:
752 NON-OBVIOUSNESS authorize the i
Page 758 and 759:
754 NON-OBVIOUSNESS B. The Inventio
Page 760 and 761:
756 NON-OBVIOUSNESS most be periphe
Page 762 and 763:
758 NON-OBVIOUSNESS of the tubing,
Page 764 and 765:
760 NON-OBVIOUSNESS toward nonobvio
Page 766 and 767:
762 NON-OBVIOUSNESS contaminating s
Page 768 and 769:
764 NON-OBVIOUSNESS solve the probl
Page 770 and 771:
766 NON-OBVIOUSNESS now claims. 3 T
Page 772 and 773:
768 NON-OBVIOUSNESS A. Who Is Presu
Page 774 and 775:
770 NON-OBVIOUSNESS PROBLEM 21-1 a.
Page 776 and 777:
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO A Creative Commo
Page 778 and 779:
A Creative Commons? Summary and Con
Page 780 and 781:
James Boyle, A Creative Commons 777
Page 782 and 783:
Page 784 and 785:
Page 786 and 787:
show all

cyckV4

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?