ClassNotesIntellectualPropertyDyalChand

LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)


Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 750a751,884

Wednesday, July 31, 2002 (Class 20)




* Greeting card trade dress infringement claim
* Can trade dress alone ever be inherently distinctive? Two Pesos--yes, 'packaging', vs. Walmart--no, 'product design'.
* Traffix: "what makes the product work"
* Qualitex: "aesthetic functionality"
* Real case: [886 F.2d 931].

Priority




* Pre-1989 needed to show use for trademark priority, then Lanham Act was amended to allow 'intent to use' registration.

Zazu Designs v. L'Oreal, S.A.




[979 F.2d 499] 1992 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb609)

* L'Oreal hired firm to create trademark, researched possible conflicts with "ZAZU", determined that small hair firm provided services and not products.
* Court of Appeals reverses lower court, saying ZHD's use was not sufficient to establish priority.
* Mark was unregistered; process of manufacture would have been sufficient to qualify mark for protection.
* "Active use" -- consumer protection -- common law trademark protection
* "Intent to use" -- lower threshold -- statutory trademark protection
* Use vs. Secondary Meaning
** Use can serve evidentiary function that there is secondary meaning
** Use->ownership
** Secondary meaning->when mark is not inherently distinctive

Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.




[174 F.3d 1036] 1999 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb619)

* 1991: West Coast registered "Movie Buff's Movie Store"
* 1993: Brookfield sells MovieBuff? software
* 1996: West Coast registered domain name "moviebuff.com"
* 1997: Brookfield files for MoveBuff? trademark
* Court found Brookfield to have priority
* Early case that resulted in anti-cybersquatter statute
* West Coast did not start using website until 1998



Friday, August 2, 2002 (Class 21)




* Priority
** Statutes: 1115 (defenses/incontestible marks), 1057 (constructive use once you've filed for registration), 1063-1064 (opposition, cancellation), 1114 (cause of action for registered trademark holders)
** Once registration is published, parties can oppose. Even after, parties can file for cancellation.
* Why register?
** Nationwide constructive use
** Incontestability
** Importation bar
** Federal cause of action
** Treble damages
* Grounds for refusal - 1052
** (a) Immoral, deceptive, scandalous
** (b) Flag
** (c) Name/portrait/etc. without consent
** (d) Most commonly invoked--confusingly similar
** (e) Descrpitive, deceptively misdescriptive, geographically descriptive, etc..

Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc.




[50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705] 1999 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

* Disparaging (not scandalous) claim
* If claim were scandalous, would need to determine meaning to substantial part of population, and then whether that meaning is scandalous to general population.
* Disparagement: perception of general public is irrelevant--disparaging to those referred to, implicated, etc., in mark.

In re Nantucket, Inc.




[677 F.2d 95] 1982 United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

* Nantucket Men's Shirts, not from Nantucket.
* Why not primarily geographically misdescriptive?
* Neither geographically descriptive nor geographically deceptive misdescriptiveness.
* Geographically descriptive: can get protection from secondary meaning
* Geographically deceptive misdescriptive: no protection.

Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc.




[469 U.S. 189] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb660)

* Trademark infringement action on incontestible descriptive trademark; defense is that mark should not have been registerable in the first place.
* Court holds challenge is barred by incontestible status.
* Stevens dissent: mark was unregisterable, should not be protected by Court.

AMF Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats




[599 F.2d 341] 1979 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb680)

* Slikcraft vs. Sleekcraft (recreational family boat company vs. recreational speeding boat)
* Look first at similarity of two lines of products, and if not similar, need to look at all factors (current law is probably to look at all factors).
* Court holds marks to be suggestive (in terms of strength).
* Proximity of goods: products are similar enough to lower standard of similarity.
* Sight, sound, and meaning: favors plaintiff



Wednesday, August 7, 2002 (Class 22) =


AMF Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats ==

[599 F.2d 341] 1979 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb680)

* Eight factor analysis for trademark infringement
* Issue of 'ordinary caution' vs. 'sophistication'.

* 1125(c): dilution. Federal cause of action:
** Plaintiff owns famous mark (some circuits require mark to be distinctive)
** Instead of confusingly similar, issue is whether junior use causes dilution of distinctive quality of plaintiff's mark.
** Junior use = commercial
** Juniro use begins after plaintiff's mark becomes famous
** 43(c)(1)(A)-(H): whether mark is famous

Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc.




[191 F.3d 208] 1999 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb697)

* Goldfish (trade dress) dilution claim
* No trademark infringement: different packaging, perhaps goldfish not distinctive enough, no actual confusion
* Defendant (in declaratory judgment) clearly met famous requirement.
* No problem with use in commerce, and use by junior user after trade dress became famous.
* Main issues: distinctiveness
** Famous marks such as American, National, etc., not likely protectable because not sufficiently distinctive.
* Dilution of distinctive quality?
** Distinctiveness: serves two roles--first, whether it qualifies for protection, second, whether junior use has diluting effect.
** Goldfish are moderately distinctive.

Friday, August 9, 2002 (Class 23) =


L. L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publisher, Inc. ==

[811 F.2d 26] 1987 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (cb772)

* Problem 5-6 (cb692)

Barcamerica Case





Intellectual Property

Prof. Rashmi Dyal-Chand

Wednesday, May 29, 2002 (Class 1)

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service

[499 U.S. 340] 1991 United States Supreme Court (cb356)


Friday, May 31, 2002 (Class 2)

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service

[499 U.S. 340] 1991 United States Supreme Court (cb356)

ProCD?, Inc. v. Zeidenberg

[86 F.3d 1447] 1996 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb363)

Fixation

Formalities

Copyrightable Subject Matter

Compilations and Derivative Works

Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Company

[429 F.2d 1106] 1970 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb409)


Wednesday, June 5, 2002 (Class 3) (Assignment 3)

Subject Matter: Types of Works -- Collective

New York Times Company v. Tasini

[533 U.S. 483] 2001 United States Supreme Court (sp33)

Subject Matter: Exclusions

Idea/Expression?

Baker v. Selden

[101 U.S. 99] 1879 United States Supreme Court (cb375)

Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble

[379 F.2d 675] 1967 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (cb382)

Useful Article Exeption

Brandir International Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co.

[834 F.2d 1142] 1987 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb388)

Friday, June 7, 2002 (Class 4)

Community for Creative Non-Violence et al. v. Reid

[490 U.S. 730] 1989 United States Supreme Court (cb414)

Arnstein v. Porter

[154 F.2d 464] 1946 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb434)

Wednesday, June 12, 2002 (Class 5)

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation

[45 F.2d 119] 1930 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (cb442)

Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

[663 F. Supp. 796] 1987 Southern District of New York (cb449)

Right to Prepare Derivative Works

Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic International, Inc.

[704 F.2d 1009] 1983 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb464)


Friday, June 14, 2002 (Class 6)

Right to Distribute

Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research International, Inc.

[118 S. Ct. 1125] 1998 United States Supreme Court (cb471)

Performance and Display

Moral Rights

Vicarious Liability vs. Contributory Infringement

Defenses

Fair Use

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al., v. Nation Enterprises et al.

[471 U.S. 539] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb491)


Friday, June 14, 2002 (Class 7)

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. v. Nation Enterprises et al.

[471 U.S. 539] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb491)

Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

[464 U.S. 417] 1984 United States Supreme Court (cb501)

Wednesday, June 19, 2002 (Class 8)

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

[510 U.S. 569] 1994 United States Supreme Court (cb526)

Remedies

Accepts Dogs Financially Feasible

  - Rent
  - Utilities
  - Finder's fee, security deposit, first & last month's rent
  - Transportation costs
Greenspace Proximity Cooperative Potential
  - Size
  - Structure
Access to Transit Financially Affordable (see factors above) Personal Sense of Safety in Neighborhood Various personal commute times Proximity to business/shopping/organic food Quiet street

Friday, June 21, 2002 (Class 9)

Trade Secrets

Metallurgical Industries Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc.

[790 F.2d 1195] 1986 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (cbb38)

Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc.

[925 F.2d 174] 1991 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb49)


Wednesday, June 26, 2002 (Class 10)

E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Rolfe Christopher et al.

[431 F.2d 1012] 1970 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb66)

Smith v. Dravo Corp.

[203 F.2d 369] 1953 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb71)

Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg

[676 F.2d 400] 1982 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb78)

Employee Confidentiality


Wednesday, July 10, 2002 (Class 13)

Diamond v. Chakrabarty

[447 U.S. 303] 1980 United States Supreme Court (cb138)

Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford Co.

[189 F. 95] 1911 Southern District of New York (cb147)

Brenner v. Manson

[383 U.S. 519] 1966 United States Supreme Court (cb157)

Rosaire v. National Lead Co.

[218 F.2d 72] 1955 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb169)

In re Hall

[781 F.2d 897] 1986 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (cb175)

Friday, July 12, 2002 (Class 14)

Egbert v. Lippmann

[104 U.S. 333] 1881 United States Supreme Court (cb178)

City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Company

[97 U.S. 126] 1877 United States Supreme Court (cb185)

102(g) Novelty and Loss of Right

Griffith v. Kanamaru

[816 F.2d 624] 1987 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (cb190)

Graham v. John Deere Co.

[383 U.S. 1] 1966 United States Supreme Court (cb195)


Friday, July 12, 2002 (Class 15)

In re Vaeck

[947 F.2d 488] 1991 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (cb209)

The Incandescent Lamp Patent

[159 U.S. 465] 1895 United States Supreme Court (cb219)

International Patent Law

In re John Kollar

Nos 01-1640, 2002 Federal Circuit (sp51)

Value Added Reseller Agreement

Wednesday, July 17, 2002 (Class 16)

Guest Speaker Anita Varma


Friday, July 19, 2002 (Class 17)

Trademarks

Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc.

[115 S. Ct. 1300] 1995 United States Supreme Court (cb568)


Wednesday, July 24, 2002 (Class 18)

Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc.

[115 S. Ct. 1300] 1995 United States Supreme Court (cb568)

Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc.

[698 F.2d 786] 1983 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb579)

Friday, July 26, 2002 (Class 19)

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

[505 U.S. 763] 1992 United States Supreme Court (cb592)

Walmart Case

Traffix Case


Wednesday, July 31, 2002 (Class 20)

Priority

Zazu Designs v. L'Oreal, S.A.

[979 F.2d 499] 1992 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb609)

Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.

[174 F.3d 1036] 1999 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb619)


Friday, August 2, 2002 (Class 21)

Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc.

[50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705] 1999 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

In re Nantucket, Inc.

[677 F.2d 95] 1982 United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc.

[469 U.S. 189] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb660)

AMF Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats

[599 F.2d 341] 1979 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb680)


Wednesday, August 7, 2002 (Class 22)

AMF Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats

[599 F.2d 341] 1979 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb680)

Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc.

[191 F.3d 208] 1999 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb697)

Friday, August 9, 2002 (Class 23)

L. L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publisher, Inc.

[811 F.2d 26] 1987 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (cb772)

Barcamerica Case


LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)

This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited August 11, 2002 6:08 pm ET (diff)
Search: