Personal Images: the Professional Athlete’S Right of Publicity by James A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax OMB No
Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax OMB No. 1545-0047 Form 990 Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except private foundations) 2013 Department of the Treasury | Do not enter Social Security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Open to Public Internal Revenue Service | Information about Form 990 and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990. Inspection A For the 2013 calendar year, or tax year beginning and ending B Check if C Name of organization D Employer identification number applicable: Address change THE RICHARD NIXON FOUNDATION Name change Doing Business As 52-1278303 Initial return Number and street (or P.O. box if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite E Telephone number Termin- ated 18001 YORBA LINDA BLVD. 714-993-5075 Amended return City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code G Gross receipts $ 16,581,001. Applica- tion YORBA LINDA, CA 92886-3949 H(a) Is this a group return pending F Name and address of principal officer:WILLIAM H. BARIBAULT for subordinates? ~~ Yes X No SAME AS C ABOVE H(b) Are all subordinates included? Yes No I Tax-exempt status: X 501(c)(3) 501(c) ( )§ (insert no.) 4947(a)(1) or 527 If "No," attach a list. (see instructions) J Website: | WWW.NIXONFOUNDATION.ORG H(c) Group exemption number | K Form of organization: X Corporation Trust Association Other | L Year of formation: 1983 M State of legal domicile: CA Part I Summary 1 Briefly describe the organization's mission or most significant activities: SEE SCHEDULE O. -
August 2010 1 August 2010 • Vol
POLISH AMERICAN JOURNAL • AUGUST 2010 www.polamjournal.com 1 AUGUST 2010 • VOL. 99, NO. 8 $2.00 PERIODICAL POSTAGE PAID AT BOSTON, NEW YORK BOSTON, AT PAID PERIODICAL POSTAGE POLISH AMERICAN OFFICES AND ADDITIONAL ENTRY JOURNALESTABLISHED 1911 www.polamjournal.com THE STORY OF WOJTEK THE SOLDIER BEAR DEDICATED TO THE PROMOTION AND CONTINUANCE OF POLISH AMERICAN CULTURE PAGE 14 CATHOLIC LEAGUE CONTINUES TO AID CHURCH IN POLAND • DO DEMOCRATS STILL HAVE A STRONGHOLD ON POLONIA? POLISH MUSEUM HONORS THE PRZYBYLO FAMILY • A POLKAS-ONLY DOWNLOADING SITE • BLACK STORKS? SPORTS: POLAND’S LOSS IS GERMANY’S GAIN • A CHAMPION FOR POLAND’S FREEDOM • SUMMER FESTIVAL RECIPES U.S. Polonia ever faithful to Law and Justice Russians NEWSMARK Participate in INVITE EXTENDED. President Barack Obama has in- Komorowski is Poland’s New President vited Poland’s new president to visit him in Washington. by Robert Strybel newed expectation. Washington Obama telephoned his congratulations to Bronislaw WARSAW— Ultimately, the final Katyn Komorowski after he won an election held three months Bronisław Ko- count showed that after President Lech Kaczynski died in a plane crash. morowski, the can- Komorowski, 58, had Conference According to the White House, Obama told Ko- didate of the ruling indeed won the snap morowski that the “resilience and resolve” the Polish pro-business Civic election, called after Admit to people demonstrated after the tragedy remains an in- Platform (Platforma the death in an April Stonewalling by spiration to the world. Obama also thanked Poland for Obywatelska = PO) air crash of Presi- Higher-Ups its contribution to the U.S. -
Why Preponderance Is the Proper Burden of Proof for Intentional Trademark Infringements Under the Lanham Act
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 67 Number 1 2014 Intending to Confuse: Why Preponderance is the Proper Burden of Proof for Intentional Trademark Infringements Under the Lanham Act Kelly Collins Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Kelly Collins, Intending to Confuse: Why Preponderance is the Proper Burden of Proof for Intentional Trademark Infringements Under the Lanham Act, 67 OKLA. L. REV. 73 (2014), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol67/iss1/2 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS Intending to Confuse: Why Preponderance Is the Proper Burden of Proof for Intentional Trademark Infringements Under the Lanham Act* To protect trade-marks . is to protect the public from deceit, to foster fair competition, and to secure to the business community the advantages of reputation and good will by preventing their diversion from those who have created them to those who have not.1 [A] reputation, like a face, is the symbol of its possessor and creator, and another can use it only as a mask.2 -Judge Learned Hand I. Introduction Though not as domineering as it is in the realm of patents or copyright, federal law still plays a significant role with respect to trademarks—the most prominent promulgation coming in the form of the Lanham Act of 1946 (Lanham Act).3 The Lanham Act provides for the national protection of trademarks, the importance of which was noted in Congress’s statement in connection with the Act’s adoption. -
The Constitutional Limit on Trademark Propertization
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION ON TRADEMARK PROPERTIZATION Peter J. Karol∗ ABSTRACT The following article seeks to apply the retrenchment in constitutional Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the last few decades to the phenomenon of trademark propertization, the expansive and largely federal movement towards protecting trademarks as assets apart from any connection to referent goods and services. Trademark scholars have filled the trademarks literature with critiques of propertization that generally object, on policy and historical grounds, to the trend and offer constructions of the Lanham Act designed to check its progress. With the notable exception of an article published in 2000 by Professor Kenneth Port, however, the literature has largely avoided addressing the question of whether the United States Congress possesses the authority to push trademark law so far in that direction. Building off of Barton Beebe’s semiotic account of trademark law, the article observes that much of the Commerce Clause case law in the trademark space is muddied by the failure to draw an analytic distinction between the trademark as such (i.e., the trademark’s signifier) and the goods and services with which it is used. Moreover, many of the seminal cases in the area predate such important new contributions to Commerce Clause jurisprudence as United States v. Lopez, Gonzalez v. Raich, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius. Upon close review of these and other recent precedents, and a thorough application of contemporary, three-category Commerce Clause analysis to trademark propertization, the article concludes that there is a firm constitutional limit to Congresses’ ability to regulate trademark signifiers detached from goods and services. -
The Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984: a Sensible Legislative Response to the Ills of Commercial Counterfeiting, 14 Fordham Urb
Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 14 | Number 1 Article 2 1986 The rT ademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984: a Sensible Legislative Response to the Ills of Commercial Counterfeiting Brian J. Kearney Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian J. Kearney, The Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984: a Sensible Legislative Response to the Ills of Commercial Counterfeiting, 14 Fordham Urb. L.J. 115 (1986). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol14/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING ACT OF 1984: A SENSIBLE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE ILLS OF COMMERCIAL COUNTERFEITING I. Introduction The trademark,' which has played a pivotal role in society for centuries, has been called "one of the oldest [and most important] 1. A trademark has the following statutory definition: "[tjhe term trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others." The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (1982). A trademark is one component of a triad of exclusive property rights popularly known as "intellectual property." See generally 1 J. -
Chapter One: Postwar Resentment and the Invention of Middle America 10
MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Jeffrey Christopher Bickerstaff Doctor of Philosophy ________________________________________ Timothy Melley, Director ________________________________________ C. Barry Chabot, Reader ________________________________________ Whitney Womack Smith, Reader ________________________________________ Marguerite S. Shaffer, Graduate School Representative ABSTRACT TALES FROM THE SILENT MAJORITY: CONSERVATIVE POPULISM AND THE INVENTION OF MIDDLE AMERICA by Jeffrey Christopher Bickerstaff In this dissertation I show how the conservative movement lured the white working class out of the Democratic New Deal Coalition and into the Republican Majority. I argue that this political transformation was accomplished in part by what I call the "invention" of Middle America. Using such cultural representations as mainstream print media, literature, and film, conservatives successfully exploited what came to be known as the Social Issue and constructed "Liberalism" as effeminate, impractical, and elitist. Chapter One charts the rise of conservative populism and Middle America against the backdrop of 1960s social upheaval. I stress the importance of backlash and resentment to Richard Nixon's ascendancy to the Presidency, describe strategies employed by the conservative movement to win majority status for the GOP, and explore the conflict between this goal and the will to ideological purity. In Chapter Two I read Rabbit Redux as John Updike's attempt to model the racial education of a conservative Middle American, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, in "teach-in" scenes that reflect the conflict between the social conservative and Eastern Liberal within the author's psyche. I conclude that this conflict undermines the project and, despite laudable intentions, Updike perpetuates caricatures of the Left and hastens Middle America's rejection of Liberalism. -
“America Will Never Be a Socialist Country”
Trump: ‘We will GOP senators think Trump administration build a human wall Trump would win vote on suspends the nuclear if necessary’ emergency declaration treaty with Russia PAGE 2 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 Volume 20, Issue 50 February 6-12–, 2019 lasvegastribune.com “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” — Voltaire Trump states in State of the Union: “America will never be a socialist country” By Jordan Fabian retribution,” even as he demanded The Hill they approve a border wall they President Trump on Tuesday have long opposed. used his first State of the Union ad- Trump peppered his speech dress under divided government to with appeals for bipartisan unity, challenge Democrats to “reject the saying Americans want to see both politics of revenge, resistance and sides “govern not as two parties but as one nation.” But his message, which also included numerous My Point barbs at Democrats, reflected the deep partisan divisions in Wash- of View ington he has helped fuel during his By Rolando Larraz two years in the Oval Office. The president called out newly I have always been a very in- emboldened House Democrats who dependent, self-sufficient, human plan to probe his administration and being; and now, in my old age, I find businesses, blasting them as “ridic- myself being a part-time newspaper ulous partisan investigations” that operator, which is very difficult for would erase the “economic mira- me to accept. cle” he said he created in the U.S. The only thing that has not “If there is going to be peace and changed is that I want to be on top legislation, there cannot be war and of everything; I have to know every investigation,” Trump said. -
18-302 Iancu V. Brunetti
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. BRUNETTI CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 18–302. Argued April 15, 2019—Decided June 24, 2019 Respondent Erik Brunetti sought federal registration of the trademark FUCT. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied his applica- tion under a provision of the Lanham Act that prohibits registration of trademarks that “[c]onsist[ ] of or comprise[ ] immoral[ ] or scan- dalous matter,” 15 U. S. C. §1052(a). Brunetti brought a First Amendment challenge to the “immoral or scandalous” bar in the Fed- eral Circuit, which invalidated the provision. Held: The Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral[ ] or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, this Court declared unconstitution- al the Lanham Act’s ban on registering marks that “disparage” any “person[ ], living or dead.” §1052(a). A divided Court agreed on two propositions. First, if a trademark registration bar is viewpoint based, it is unconstitutional. And second, the disparagement bar was viewpoint based. -
The Aftermath of Matal V. Tam: Unanswered Questions and Early Applications
University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume 87 Issue 3 Article 9 March 2019 The Aftermath of Matal v. Tam: Unanswered Questions and Early Applications Andrew Lehmkuhl University of Cincinnati College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr Recommended Citation Andrew Lehmkuhl, The Aftermath of Matal v. Tam: Unanswered Questions and Early Applications, 87 U. Cin. L. Rev. 871 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol87/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Cincinnati Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lehmkuhl: Questions After Matal v. Tam THE AFTERMATH OF MATAL V. TAM: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND EARLY APPLICATIONS Andrew M. Lehmkuhl II I. INTRODUCTION Seven applications to register a trademark for the N-word were filed since June 19, 2017.1 Similar applications were filed for the swastika symbol.2 Prior to that date, a provision of the federal statute governing trademark registration (The Lanham Act) expressly made federal registration unavailable for disparaging terms or symbols.3 In the landmark decision in Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court held that this ban on disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.4 Many questions remain following the decision in Tam. Primarily, clear guidance does not exist for whether similar trademark subject prohibitions included in the Lanham Act also violate the First Amendment as an unconstitutional abridgement of speech. -
Denying Trademark for Scandalous Speech
Denying Trademark for Scandalous Speech Ned Snow* Recently in Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional. The disparagement clause prevented registration of disparaging trademarks — i.e., marks that were offensively disparaging toward individuals — such that the clause could have induced mark owners to refrain from speaking offensive views. The potential for self-censorship led the Court to recognize a First Amendment violation. Importantly, the Justices unanimously agreed that the clause was viewpoint discriminatory. Viewpoint discrimination was damning. This central point of Tam calls into question another clause in the Lanham Act — the scandalous clause — which prevents registration of marks that are offensive to the public’s sense of decency and propriety. Simply put, does Tam suggest the unconstitutionality of the scandalous clause? The Federal Circuit recently answered this question in In re Brunetti, holding that in view of Tam, the scandalous clause violated the First Amendment. This Essay concludes otherwise. The Essay argues that the scandalous clause does not violate the First Amendment if the clause is interpreted as restricting only sexually-explicit and vulgar content. In particular, this interpretation implies that the clause is viewpoint neutral because viewpoint discrimination entails the government targeting content that communicates an opposable view — i.e., an opinion or assertion. Content that is sexually explicit or vulgar does not communicate an opposable view: sexually-explicit content exists to stimulate a sexual response; vulgar content exists to evoke emotive force. Neither represents an opinion that may be disagreed with. Indeed, unlike in Tam, the * Copyright © 2018 Ned Snow. -
Delegation Briefing Table of Contents
DELEGATION BRIEFING TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IN AFRICA 4 DELEGATION SCHEDULE 8 SOUTH AFRICA 9 COUNTRY OVERVIEW 11 CGI VISIT: CITY YEAR SOUTH AFRICA 12 MOZAMBIQUE 13 COUNTRY OVERVIEW 15 CHAI VISIT: MAPUTO HEALTH FACILITY 15 AGOA VISIT: MAPUTO 16 RWANDA 17 COUNTRY OVERVIEW 20 CGI VISIT: OPENING OF BUTARO CANCER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 20 CDI VISIT: SOYCO LTD 21 CHAI VISIT: HUMAN RESOURCES FOR HEALTH PROGRAM 22 UGANDA 23 COUNTRY OVERVIEW 26 CGI VISIT: BUILDING TOMORROW ACADEMY 26 CHAI VISIT: NATIONAL MEDICAL STORE AND RX DISTRIBUTION CENTER 27 DELEGATION INFORMATION 28 PRESS GUIDELINES 29 DELEGATION LIST AND BIOS 36 FOUNDATION STAFF 39 “AFRICA: A CONTINENT READY TO FULFILL ITS POTENTIAL” BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, LONDON EVENING STANDARD 40 “CHARITY NEEDS CAPITALISM TO SOLVE THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS” BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, FINANCIAL TIMES CLINTON FOUNDATION BRIEFING: AFRICA 2012 1 CLINTON FOUNDATION BRIEFING: AFRICA 2012 2 THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IN AFRICA President Clinton made his first trip to Africa in 1998 – the longest, most extensive trip made to the continent by an American president. During this trip, he launched a number of initiatives aimed at education, economic empowerment, and peace and reconciliation. He forgave debt so nations could reinvest in health care, education, and poverty alleviation. He increased funding and research for lifesaving vaccines. And he signed the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) into law, which helped strengthen economic ties between the United States and Africa. President Clinton has continued to build upon his longstanding commitment to Africa through the work of his Foundation, and has traveled through Africa many times since leaving the White House in 2001. -
Bulletin 13-05: Trademark and Copyright
Trademark and Copyright Law Bulletin No. 13-05 Legislative Counsel Bureau January 2013 TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT LAW BULLETIN NO. 13-05 JANUARY 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary of Recommendation ............................................................................. iii Report to the 77th Session of the Nevada Legislature by the Legislative Commission’s Committee to Study Trademark and Copyright Law ........................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 Members ............................................................................................... 1 Staff .................................................................................................... 1 Meeting ................................................................................................ 2 II. Background ........................................................................................... 2 Copyright Law ........................................................................................ 2 Trademark Law ....................................................................................... 2 III. Review of Major Issues ............................................................................. 3 Copyright Law ........................................................................................ 3 Trademark Law ......................................................................................