04.11.2014 Views

cyckV4

cyckV4

cyckV4

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

270 FALSE ADVERTISING, DILUTION & ‘CYBERPIRACY’<br />

PROBLEM 9-3<br />

Lamparello is from the 4th Circuit, the same Circuit that decided PETA (excerpted in<br />

Chapter 7). Are the two cases consistent? In your answer you should first offer the<br />

strongest reasons that they are not—listing arguments, decisions on points of law, legal<br />

definitions, or jurisprudential approaches towards trademark that you think make the<br />

two decisions inconsistent, not just as a matter of law, but as a matter of trademark<br />

philosophy. Then you should make the strongest counter arguments. In particular, you<br />

should list the distinguishing features between the two cases that actually show that<br />

the decisions—though one favors plaintiff and one defendant—are consistent. Which<br />

side of the debate do you think is stronger, and why? To the extent you do think the<br />

cases represent diverging views, with which do you agree?

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!