DOCSLIB.ORG

Brunetti (Pet)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brunetti (Pet) No. In the Supreme Court of the United States ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER v. ERIK BRUNETTI ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART SARAH HARRIS Deputy Solicitor General General Counsel JONATHAN Y. ELLIS JOSEPH MATAL Assistant to the Solicitor Acting Solicitor General ARK REEMAN CHRISTINA J. HIEBER M R. F ANIEL ENNY THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE D T MARY BETH WALKER JOSHUA M. SALZMAN MOLLY R. SILFEN Attorneys Associate Solicitors Department of Justice U.S. Patent and Trademark Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Office [email protected] Alexandria, Va. 22314 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be re- fused registration if it “[c]onsists of or comprises im- moral * * * or scandalous matter.” The question pre- sented is as follows: Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is fa- cially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ...................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 10 I. The court of appeals’ invalidation of an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review ....................... 10 II. The court of appeals erred in holding that the scandalous-marks provision is unconstitutional ......... 12 A. This Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam is not controlling here ....................................................... 12 B. Section 1052(a) does not restrict speech ............... 15 C. The scandalous-marks provision establishes a lawful eligibility requirement for federal trademark registration ........................................... 18 III. The question presented is important ........................... 24 Conclusion ................................................................................... 25 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Dec. 15, 2017) .............................................. 1a Appendix B — Trademark Trial and Appeal Board opinion (Aug. 1, 2014) ................ 55a Appendix C — Court of appeals order denying rehearing en banc (Apr. 12, 2018) ............................. 68a Appendix D — Statutory provision ...................................... 70a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013) ............................................... 19, 20 Ashcrof t v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) ............................... 11 B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) ..................................................... 3, 16 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) .................................................................................... 14 Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142 (1927) .............................. 11 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) ...................... 11 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ......................................... 8, 22 City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) ............................................................... 22 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ............................................................... 21 Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass’n, 551 U.S. 177 (2007) .................................................................................... 20 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ............................... 21 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) .................................................................................... 22 Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979) ............................... 21 General Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cohen, 131 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 (1998) ....... 14 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) .................................................................................... 11 Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017).......................... passim PMG Int’l Div., L.L.C. v. Rumsfeld, 303 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 14 Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985)................................................................ 2 Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) .......... 14, 15 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) ...................................................................................... 3 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) .................. 15 Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540 (1983)........................................................ 18, 19 V Cases—Continued: Page Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).............................................................. 15 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) .............................. 11 Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) .............................. 7, 18 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522 (1987) ................... 21 Tam, In re, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................... 15 Trade-Mark Cases, In re, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) ................. 3, 16 Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) ............................................ 19 Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) ...................................................................................... 3 United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) .................... 11 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)........................................................ 17, 18 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) .................... 11 United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) ................. 11 Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) ....... 18 Constitution, treaty, and statutes: U.S. Const. Amend. I (Free Speech Clause) ............. passim Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property art. 6quinquies, July 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1643, 828 U.N.T.S. 331 ................................................................. 24 Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, §§ 77-84, 16 Stat. 210-212 ......... 3 Act of Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, 33 Stat. 724 ............................. 3 § 5, 33 Stat. 725 ............................................................ 4, 24 Lanham Act, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.)..................................................................................... 3 15 U.S.C. 1051(a)(1) ........................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1052 .................................................. 2, 4, 17, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) (§ 2(a)) ................................ passim, 70a VI Statutes—Continued: Page 15 U.S.C. 1052(b) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(c) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(d) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1) ................................................... 4, 72a 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(5) ................................................... 4, 72a 15 U.S.C. 1057(a) ............................................................. 19 15 U.S.C. 1057(b) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1065 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1071(a) ............................................................. 25 15 U.S.C. 1072 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1111 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1115(a) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1115(b) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) ............................................................. 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(b) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(d) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1127 .............................................................. 2, 16 15 U.S.C. 1141b ................................................................ 24 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(B) ......................................................... 25 Miscellaneous: USPTO, Examination Guide 2-18: Examination Guidance for Compliance with Section 2(a)’s Scan- dalousness Provision While Constitutionality Re- mains in Question during Period to Petition for Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court (May 24, 2018), http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/guides-and- manuals/trademark-examination-guides
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Images: the Professional Athlete’S Right of Publicity by James A
    MARCH/APRIL 2008 VOL. 80 | NO. 3 JournalNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION PPersonalersonal IImagesmages Unauthorized Publicity vs. Public Interest Also in this Issue Common-Law Dissolution by James A. Johnson in New York Outsourcing and Intellectual Property Rights Crime Victims Compensation BESTSELLERS FROM THE NYSBA BOOKSTORE March/April 2008 Attorney Escrow Accounts, Legal Manual for New York Physicians, Second Edition (2006) Second Edition (2006) NEW! The Second Edition offers comprehensive coverage Co-published by NYSBA and the Medical Society of the Entertainment Litigation (2007) of the most common situations involving client funds State of New York, this comprehensive text is a must- This new reference covers the fundamental issues and clearly discusses the legal and ethical issues have for physicians, attorneys representing physicians that are central to a creative artist’s career. It is a basic, practical guide that gives creative artists and encountered. and those involved in the medical profession. Presented their representatives insight as to how to avoid the PN: 40266 / Member $45 / List $55 / 266 pages in an easy-to-use question-and-answer format. courtroom. PN: 41325 / Member $90 / List $105 / 1,032 pages PN: 4087 / Member $35 / List $55 / 234 pages Collections and the Enforcement of Money Judgments, 2006 Revision N.Y. Municipal Formbook, FFormsorms New York Lawyer’s Deskbook, This classic text provides detailed guidance in the Third Edition (2006) oonn CCDD Second Edition, 2007–2008 field of debt collections and enforcement of money A rich resource for attorneys dealing WINNER OF THE ABA’S CONSTABAR AWARD judgments. Completely updated with the cumulative with local government as it affects employees, The Second Edition consists of 25 chapters, each supplement.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television
    Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Issue 5 2015 The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television Ellen Alexandra Eichner Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Alexandra Eichner, The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television, 92 WASH. U. L. REV. 1353 (2015). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss5/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SEVEN DIRTY WORDS YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY ON TELEVISION I. INTRODUCTION Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.1 For any American who has turned on his or her television since 1978 and tuned into one of the traditional broadcast networks—ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox—these seven words have been conspicuously absent from broadcasting. Confusingly, with a flip of the remote over to a premium cable television station, these seven words may all occur in quick succession on one television show.2 When one of them does happen to make it to air on a broadcast network, it often becomes the source of an astronomical fine from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and years of litigation between the network and the federal government.3 A recent case resulted in a huge victory for broadcasters.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The USPTO Prevents Federal Registration of Medical Marijuana Trademarks
    Exceeding Its Authority: The USPTO Prevents Federal Registration of Medical Marijuana Trademarks Stephanie Gambino* Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1417 I. FEDERAL PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA TRADEMARKS ................... 1420 II. TRADEMARK LAW’S STATUTORY BASIS & THE USPTO’S RULEMAKING AUTHORITY .................................................................. 1421 A. The Lanham Act & Federal Regulations ................................... 1421 B. The USPTO’s Rulemaking Authority & Statutory Overreach.... 1423 III. INCONSISTENT USE & INTERPRETATION OF “LAWFUL” ............... 1427 IV. BENEFITS OF FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION ................... 1430 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 1433 INTRODUCTION Some parents are willing to drive across state lines in order to obtain cannabidiol-based medical marijuana oil. These parents end up illegally transporting the medical marijuana products back to their home state for their children.1 The act may involve committing a federal felony as the car, driven by desperate parents and full of marijuana oil, crosses state line after state line. Many of these stories come from parents whose children have severe epilepsy and have found no relief from traditional 2 pharmaceuticals. * Seattle University School of Law, J.D. 2017. I would like to thank my fiancé Rob Shingleton for his unconditional support throughout this process. I would also like to thank the editors of the Seattle University Law Review for their contributions to the writing and editing of this article. 1. Kate Pickert, Pot Kids: Inside the Quasi-Legal, Science-Free World of Medical Marijuana for Children, TIME, http://time.com/pot-kids/ [https://perma.cc/A6AZ-NUPV]; see also Diane Tsai, One Family’s Illegal Journey to Get Medical Marijuana for Their Child, TIME (Nov. 4, 2014), http://time.com/3554936/medical-marijuana-kids-pot-kids/. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of the Lanham Act: a Retrospective of Section 43(A)
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 7, Issue 1 1996 Article 6 VOLUME VII BOOK 1 Fifty Years of the Lanham Act: A Retrospective of Section 43(a) Ethan Horwitz∗ Benjamin Leviy ∗Darby & Darby, P.C. yDarby & Darby, P.C. Copyright c 1996 by the authors. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Fifty Years of the Lanham Act: A Retrospective of Section 43(a) Ethan Horwitz* Benjamin Levi** INTRODUCTION The Trademark Act of 19461 (“Lanham Act”) marks its fifti- eth anniversary2 with a much broader scope than originally envisioned by Congress. The expanded reach of the Lanham Act rests, in part, upon the growing prominence of its section 43(a) (“section 43(a)”).3 Section 43(a) was initially interpreted as forbidding only “passing-off,”4 or the infringement or unau- *Member, Darby & Darby, P.C., New York, NY. Polytechnic Institute of New York, B.S. 1972; Courant Institute, New York University, M.S. 1974; St. John’s University, J.D. 1976. ** Associate, Darby & Darby, P.C., New York, NY. Boston University, B.S. 1988; Northeastern University, J.D. 1996. 1. Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”), ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051-1127 (West Supp. 1996)). 2. The Lanham Act—named for Texas Congressman Fritz G. Lanham—was signed into law on July 5, 1946, and became effective exactly one year later. Id. 3. Section 43(a) states, in relevant part: Any person who, on or in connection
    [Show full text]
  • Unconstitutional Incontestability? the Intersection of the Intellectual Property and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution: Beyond a Critique of Shakespeare Co
    Unconstitutional Incontestability? The Intersection of the Intellectual Property and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution: Beyond A Critique of Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp. Malla Pollack* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................. 260 II. The Triggering Case: Shakespeare v. Silstar ........ 261 III. Background Statutory and Common Law ........... 262 A. Mere Descriptiveness ...................... 263 B. Functionality .. .......................... 264 C. Incontestably-Registered Trademarks .......... 266 IV. Congress May Not By Pass the "Limited Times" Provision in the Intellectual Property Clause Through the Commerce Clause . ....................... 270 A. Other Clauses as Limits on the Commerce Clause 270 B. The Meaning of "Limited Times" in the Intellectual Property Clause ................. 274 C. Intellectual Property Clause Limits on the Commerce Clause ......................... 288 1. Equivalent Rights-A Thesis ............. 289 2. Court Statements . ..................... 297 3. Congress' Actions .................... 298 V. Constitutional Limits On The States? Suggesting Constitutional/Statutory Preemption ............. 300 VI. Conclusion .................................. 326 V II. C oda ................................... 327 * Assoc. Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, I1.; Adjunct Prof. liT-Chicago-Kent School of Law. Many thanks to those who offered suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper including Louis Altman, David P. Currie, Kenneth W. Dam, Richard A. Epstein, Dennis J. Hutchinson, Paul Garcia, William
    [Show full text]