DOCSLIB.ORG

Beebe - Trademark Law: an Open-Source Casebook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beebe - Trademark Law: an Open-Source Casebook Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook III. Defenses to Trademark Infringement and Related Limitations on Trademark Rights ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Descriptive Fair Use ............................................................................................................... 3 1. Descriptive Fair Use and Consumer Confusion ................................................ 3 KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. .................... 4 2. The Three-Step Test for Descriptive Fair Use ................................................ 10 Dessert Beauty, Inc. v. Fox ................................................................................. 10 Sorensen v. WD-40 Company ........................................................................... 21 3. Further Examples of Descriptive Fair Use Analyses .................................... 27 International Stamp Art v. U.S. Postal Service ......................................... 27 Bell v. Harley Davidson Motor Co. .................................................................. 29 Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret.................................................. 30 B. Nominative Fair Use ........................................................................................................... 32 1. The Three-Step Test for Nominative Fair Use ................................................ 32 Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari ................................................... 34 Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. .............................................................................. 46 2. Further Examples of Nominative Fair Use Analyses ................................... 49 Liquid Glass Enterprises, Inc. v. Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG .................. 51 Toho Co., Ltd. v. William Morrow & Co., Inc. ............................................. 51 C. Expressive Uses of Trademarks ..................................................................................... 54 1. Expressive Uses and the Tests for Confusion and Dilution ...................... 56 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC ........................ 56 2. The Rogers v. Grimaldi Test for Unauthorized “Artistic” Uses ................. 73 E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. .................... 74 Brown v. Electronic Arts ..................................................................................... 81 3. Further Examples of Expressive Use Analyses .............................................. 94 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. ..................................................................... 95 Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions ........................................ 98 Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Hyundai Motor Am. ............................. 104 MPS Entm't, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc........................... 106 The Louis Vuitton / Penn Law School Controversy.............................. 108 D. Trademark Abandonment ............................................................................................. 114 1. Abandonment Through Cessation of Use ...................................................... 114 ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc. ................................................................................. 115 Crash Dummy Movie, LLC v. Mattel, Inc. ................................................... 125 2. Abandonment Through Failure to Control Use .......................................... 130 a. Abandonment Through Naked Licensing ............................................ 130 FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network ............................................... 130 Part III 1 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. V2.0/2015-07-20 Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook b. Assignment in Gross ..................................................................................... 141 Sugar Busters LLC v Brennan ........................................................................ 142 E. The First Sale Doctrine ................................................................................................... 146 Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders .......................................................... 147 Nitro Leisure Products, L.L.C. v. Acushnet Co. ........................................ 151 Part III 2 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. V2.0/2015-07-20 Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook III. Defenses to Trademark Infringement and Related Limitations on Trademark Rights A. Descriptive Fair Use In a typical descriptive fair use situation, the plaintiff uses a term as a trademark (e.g., SWEETARTS for candy) that the defendant also uses merely to describe its own goods (e.g., “sweet-tart” to describe the taste of OCEAN SPRAY cranberry juice). See Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 1995) (finding defendant’s descriptive, non-trademark use of the term “sweet-tart” to be a descriptive fair use). The affirmative defense of descriptive fair use (sometimes called “classic” fair use) is based on Lanham Act § § 33(b)(4), 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4), which establishes a defense to trademark infringement on the ground: (4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin; We begin our review of descriptive fair use in Part III.A.1 with KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004). Note importantly that KP Permanent does not apparently set forth any specific test that the circuits should apply to adjudicate a descriptive fair use claim. The opinion is included here primarily because of the importance of the Court’s clear holding that in determining descriptive fair use, a court may find the defendant’s conduct to be a descriptive fair use even if that conduct causes some degree of consumer confusion as to source. We then turn In Part III.A.2 to the basic three-step test that most courts apply to evaluate a claim of descriptive fair use. 1. Descriptive Fair Use and Consumer Confusion In KP Permanent, the declaratory plaintiff used the term “microcolor” in advertisements for its “permanent makeup” (shown below on the left). The defendant had previously registered the trademark MICRO COLORS at the PTO (on the right). In the excerpt that follows, the Supreme Court finally overruled the Ninth Part III 3 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. V2.0/2015-07-20 Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook Circuit’s bizarre doctrine that any likelihood of consumer confusion defeats a defense of descriptive fair use. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. 543 U.S. 111 (2004) SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and STEVENS, O’CONNOR, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but footnotes 4 and 5 [footnotes 1 and 2 in this excerpt], and in which BREYER, J., joined as to all but footnote 6 [footnote 3 in this excerpt]. … [1] On appeal, 328 F.3d 1061 (2003), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit thought it was error for the District Court to have addressed the fair use defense without delving into the matter of possible confusion on the part of consumers Part III 4 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. V2.0/2015-07-20 Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook about the origin of KP’s goods. The reviewing court took the view that no use could be recognized as fair where any consumer confusion was probable, and although the court did not pointedly address the burden of proof, it appears to have placed it on KP to show absence of consumer confusion. Id., at 1072 (“Therefore, KP can only benefit from the fair use defense if there is no likelihood of confusion between KP’s use of the term ‘micro color’ and Lasting’s mark”). Since it found there were disputed material facts relevant under the Circuit’s eight-factor test for assessing the likelihood of confusion, it reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case. [2] We granted KP’s petition for certiorari, 540 U.S. 1099 (2004), to address a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on the significance of likely confusion for a fair use defense to a trademark infringement claim, and the obligation of a party defending on that ground to show that its use is unlikely to cause consumer confusion. Compare 328 F.3d, at 1072 (likelihood of confusion bars the fair use defense); PACCAR Inc. v. TeleScan Technologies, L.L.C., 319 F.3d 243,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mattel V Walking Mountain Productions.Malted Barbie
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTEL INC., a Delaware Corporation, No. 01-56695 Plaintiff-Appellant, C.D. Cal. No. v. CV-99-08543- RSWL WALKING MOUNTAIN PRODUCTIONS, a California Business Entity; TOM N.D. Cal. No. FORSYTHE, an individual d/b/a CV-01-0091 Walking Mountain Productions, Misc. WHA Defendants-Appellees. MATTEL INC., a Delaware No. 01-57193 Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, C.D. Cal. No. CV-99-08543- v. RSWL WALKING MOUNTAIN PRODUCTIONS, N.D. Cal. No. a California Business Entity; TOM CV-01-0091 FORSYTHE, an individual d/b/a Misc. WHA Walking Mountain Productions, Defendants-Appellants. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding and United States District Court for the Northern District of California William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 6, 2003—Pasadena, California 18165 18166 MATTEL INC. v. WALKING MOUNTAIN PRODUCTIONS Filed December 29, 2003 Before: Harry Pregerson and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges, and Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior District Judge.* Opinion by Judge Pregerson *The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior Judge, United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. 18170 MATTEL INC. v. WALKING MOUNTAIN PRODUCTIONS COUNSEL Adrian M. Pruetz (argued), Michael T. Zeller, Edith Ramirez and Enoch Liang, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellant- cross-appellee. Annette L. Hurst (argued), Douglas A. Winthrop and Simon J. Frankel, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rab- kin, APC, San Francisco, California, and Peter J.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is Really Protecting Barbie
    University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 7-1-2008 Who is really protecting Barbie: Goliath or the Silver Knight? A defense of Mattel's aggressive international attemps to protect its Barbie copyright and trademark Liz Somerstein Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Liz Somerstein, Who is really protecting Barbie: Goliath or the Silver Knight? A defense of Mattel's aggressive international attemps to protect its Barbie copyright and trademark, 39 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 559 (2008) Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr/vol39/iss3/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Inter- American Law Review by an authorized administrator of Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Who is really protecting Barbie: Goliath or the Silver Knight? A defense of Mattel's aggressive international attempts to protect its Barbie copyright and trademark Liz Somerstein* INTRODUCTION .............................................. 559 I. LEGAL REALISM: AN OVERVIEW ....................... 562 II. MATTEL'S AMERICAN BATTLE: MATTEL, INC. V. WALKING MOUNTAIN PRODUCTIONS ................... 563 A. The Walking Mountain case: Background ........ 565 B. The Walking Mountain Court's Analysis ......... 567 i. Purpose and character of use ................ 568 ii. Nature of the copyrighted work .............. 570 iii. Amount and substantiality of the portion u sed ......................................... 570 iv. Effect upon the potential market ............ 571 III. AT LOOK AT WALKING MOUNTAIN UNDER THE LEGAL REALIST LENS .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Confusion Isn't Everything William Mcgeveran University of Minnesota Law School
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 89 | Issue 1 Article 6 11-2013 Confusion Isn't Everything William McGeveran University of Minnesota Law School Mark P. McKenna University of Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 253 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\89-1\NDL106.txt unknown Seq: 1 25-NOV-13 9:31 CONFUSION ISN’T EVERYTHING† William McGeveran* and Mark P. McKenna** The typical shorthand justification for trademark rights centers on avoiding consumer con- fusion. But in truth, this encapsulation mistakes a method for a purpose: confusion merely serves as an indicator of the underlying problems that trademark law seeks to prevent. Other areas of law accept confusion or mistake of all kinds, intervening only when those errors lead to more serious harms. Likewise, every theory of trademark rights considers confusion troubling solely because it threatens more fundamental values such as fair competition or informative com- munication. In other words, when it comes to the deep purposes of trademark law, confusion isn’t everything. Yet trademark law’s structure now encourages courts to act otherwise, as if confusion itself were the ultimate evil with which trademark law is concerned and as if its optimal level were zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Annals of the University of Craiova, Series
    Annals of the University of Craiova ANALELE UNIVERSITĂŢII DIN CRAIOVA ANNALES DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE CRAIOVA ANNALS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CRAIOVA SERIES: PHILOLOGY -ENGLISH- * YEAR XVIII, NO. 1-2, 2017 1 Annals of the University of Craiova ANNALS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CRAIOVA 13, Al. I. Cuza ROMANIA We make exchanges with similar institutions in Romania and abroad ANALELE UNIVERSITĂŢII DIN CRAIOVA Str. Al. I. Cuza, nr. 13 ROMÂNIA Efectuăm schimburi cu instituţii similare din ţară şi din străinătate ANNALES DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE CRAIOVA 13, Rue Al. I. Cuza ROUMANIE On fait des échanges des publications avec les institutions similaires du pays et de l’étranger EDITORS General editor: Aloisia Sorop, University of Craiova, Romania Assistant editor: Ana-Maria Trantescu, University of Craiova, Romania Editorial secretary: Diana Otat, University of Craiova, Romania Reviewers: Professor Sylvie Crinquand, University of Bourgogne, Dijon, France Associate Professor Patrick Murphy, Nord University, Norway Professor Mariana Neagu, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Romania Associate Professor Rick St. Peter, Northwestern State University, USA Associate Professor Melanie Shoffner, James Madison University, USA Dieter Wessels, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany Associate Professor Anne-Lise Wie, Nord University, Norway The authors are fully responsible for the originality of their papers and for the accuracy of their notes. 2 Issue coordinators: Associate Professor Florentina Anghel, PhD Associate Professor Madalina Cerban, PhD Senior Lecturer Claudia Pisoschi, PhD Senior Lecturer Mihai Cosoveanu, PhD CONTENTS FLORENTINA ANGHEL Past and Present in T.S.Eliot’s Avant-Garde Poetry ………………… 7 ARDA ARIKAN Characters as Animals in Dreiser’s Sister Carrie ....................... 16 SORIN CAZACU Culture Clash in Toni Morrison's Tar Baby .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Organizations in Greater Seattle
    Seatt'p Public Library UTERATUWE FEB 1 55 1978 Special New Year Edition Section A & Tm^MS(DIEHFlf, A Welcome Visitor to Greater Seattle Jewish Homes for SI Years Volume LI No. 15 Seattle, Washington September 3, 1975 yv -n> urn nr po (vwm rr£j>o mi inn D n KmucDi Page 2A The Jewish Transcript September 3,1975 Around the town . SAMUEL COHEN, Mercer Island realtor, boasts he's one of the original readers of the Transcript since its founding back in 1924, and follows it closely for news of the community . SAMUEL AND ALTHEA STROUM received a warm letter of appreciation from UW Pres. John R Hogness and Dean George M. Beckmann of the College of Arts and Sciences for their fund grant which made possible the upcoming Samuel and Althea Stroum Visiting Lec­ tureship in Jewish Studies there, starting in the fall. Pres. Hogness stressed the program will provide "a happy blend of scholarly and artistic achievement." MRS ESTHER SOLOMON of Capetown, South Africa, was a recent visitor in Seattle where for the first time, she met members of her family, including her cousins, Mrs. Frank Jones, Mrs. Ceorge Mosler and David Clazer and their families. During her stay, she was entertained and toured the Greater Seattle area . Seattle Sephardic Youth Federation, those between the ages of 18 and 25, visited Israel last month on a three-week tour, and included members Shelly Adatto, Terry and Tommy Damm, Stanley and Jean Ann Lorber and Sherry Rind, the latter former REUNITED AT LAST-former Prisoners of Zion Lassal Kaminsky and Lev Yagman (with dark glasses), office manager for The Jewish Transcript, who returns to both sentenced to five years hard labour in the second Leningrad trial of 1971 arrived in Israel, where they UW this month to continue her studies for her Master's and had a tearful reunion with their wives and children who had been allowed to immigrate earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • The Barbie Case
    The Barbie® Case Introduction When on October 11, 2005, Neil B. Friedman was promoted from his position as head of the successful Fisher-Price® division to become the President of the combined operations of the merged Mattel® and Fisher-Price® units, he might have considered this promotion to be a daunting task to take on. At the start of this job as the President of the Mattel® Brands Division, the sales of Barbie®, Mattel®'s signature doll and profit engine, which account for an estimated 251 to 35%2 of Mattel®'s sales had fallen for seven straight quarters on a year-to-year basis.3 Barbie®'s global third-quarter sales in 2005 were down 18% from the previous year, and U.S. sales decreased 30%. This decrease in sales affected Mattel®'s overall performance as shares tumbled to their lowest point in four years. 4 The toy industry overall was struggling, with sales down 5.3% through the first nine months. U.S. retail sales of dolls fell 6% in that period, according to market researcher NPD Group. Analysts believe the slide will continue as more kids choose video games and digital-music players over action figures and board games.5 In addition, Friedman was confronted with an anti-Barbie climate with campaigns challenging Barbie®’s beauty ideal launched by The Body Shop and more recent ones by Dove® and Nike® as well as a tradition of Mattel losing legal battles time and again against artists who parodied Barbie®. 1 The Barbie® Case 1. History of Mattel, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition Actes
    AVANT-PROPOS Le présent document est la transcription des interventions effectuées à l’occasion du colloque Archimages10, qui s’est tenu à paris les 17, 18, 19 novembre 2010. Suivi éditorial : Marc Vernet – Conseiller pour le patrimoine cinématographique, Inp. Loraine Pereira – Chargée de mission pour le patrimoine cinématographique, Inp. Transcription : Téléscribe RESUME On a connu jadis le cinéma permanent, où l’on pouvait à toute heure entrer voir un long métrage de fiction à vedettes. Aujourd’hui, les débats autour du numérique ont remis en avant la permanence de l’enregistrement sur pellicule analogique, par opposition à l’inconnu du devenir des oeuvres sur support numérique. Mais la création, si attentive aux matières et aux dispositifs, a suivi, pour à la fois en bénéficier et en jouer, tous les méandres des évolutions technologiques du cinéma et de l’audiovisuel, ce qui pose aujourd’hui de nombreuses questions de conservation et de présentation. A l’heure du franchissement des frontières entre cinéma et vidéo, de la mutation des salles de cinéma, Archimages10 se propose de faire le point sur le statut, la place et le rôle de l’oeuvre audiovisuelle, en particulier au sein des institutions patrimoniales. On abordera les différents moments (et les multiples difficultés) des politiques à mettre en oeuvre, dans les musées comme dans les cinémathèques : production, acquisition, conservation, migration et duplication, exposition, avec des interventions d’experts, de créateurs et de conservateurs. Friedrich Kittler ouvrira les travaux où alterneront pendant trois jours interventions et tables rondes. Coordination générale : Comité de pilotage : Inp, en association avec le Collectif 24/25, Président : Bruno Racine (BnF) la BnF et le CNAP.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Pitch It, They Will Eat
    _______________________________________________________________________ The New York Times, New York, NY If You Pitch It, They Will Eat August 3, 2003 David Barboza <<<>>> This document is available on the Education Policy Studies Laboratory website at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/CERU/Articles/CERU-0308-149-OWI.doc ________________________________________________________________________ The McDonald's Corporation wants to be everywhere that children are. So besides operating 13,602 restaurants in the United States, it has plastered its golden arches on Barbie dolls, video games, book jackets and even theme parks. McDonald's calls this promotion and brand extension. But, a growing number of nutritionists call it a blitzkrieg that perverts children's eating habits and sets them on a path to obesity. Marketing fast food, snacks and beverages to children is at least as old as Ronald McDonald himself. What's new, critics say, is the scope and intensity of the assault. Big food makers like McDonald's and Kraft Foods Inc. are finding every imaginable way to put their names in front of children. And they're spending more than ever -- $15 billion last year, compared with $12.5 billion in 1998, according to research conducted at Texas A&M University in College Station. "What really changed over the last decade is the proliferation of electronic media," says Susan Linn, a psychologist who studies children's marketing at Harvard's Judge Baker Children's Center. "It used to just be Saturday-morning television. Now it's Nickelodeon, movies, video games, the Internet and even marketing in schools." Product tie-ins are everywhere. There are SpongeBob SquarePants Popsicles, Oreo Cookie preschool counting books and Keebler's Scooby Doo Cookies.
    [Show full text]
  • Barbie™ Dan Hunter F
    Barbie™ Dan Hunter F. Gregory Lastowka* Intellectual property laws are the means by which corporations allow access to their products. Mattel Inc.’s Barbie doll is highly dependent on the intellectual property system, and this Article provides the first serious account of the development of Barbie as an object of intellectual property. It demonstrates the significance of Barbie as an intellectual property object, and it traces how intellectual property laws emerged as such a powerful technology of control in the period from Barbie’s birth in 1959 to the present. The Article also shows that the great unrecognized feature of the intellectual property system is its ability to manipulate desire. I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 133 II. WORD MADE FLESH-TONED: CONCEIVED IN SIN .......................... 136 III. FLESH AND CONTROL ....................................................................... 142 IV. SEX AND POWER ............................................................................... 152 V. THE VENUS OF HAWTHORNE ........................................................... 159 I. INTRODUCTION Most discussions of intellectual property law miss the point. Authors tend to pick apart some small aspect of a law, explaining why their proposed reform will provide better policy outcomes, or they examine a court decision and explain why the judges there have gotten it wrong. Although many of these articles are useful contributions, they miss the larger story of how the intellectual property system works in practice, and particularly how the system has changed over the years, and how it has come to be so important in our modern day society. These accounts also fail to explain how companies have responded to the intellectual property system, and how they have engineered changes in the system over time. Although there are notable counter-examples, in general we have few accounts of the larger story of the development of © 2015 Dan Hunter and F.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTISTIC EXPRESSION TODAY: CAN ARTISTS USE the LANGUAGE of OUR CULTURE? MARK SABLEMAN* to Many of Us Who Came of Age in The
    ARTISTIC EXPRESSION TODAY: CAN ARTISTS USE THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CULTURE? MARK SABLEMAN* INTRODUCTION To many of us who came of age in the era of the Vietnam War and the Nixon administration, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton epitomized the model democratic legislator—a smart and eloquent champion for what is right, even when it is not popular. Those who knew him primarily in the last decade of his life (at least those few persons with whom he did not share his views on another mistaken war and arrogant president), may have seen a different person. Particularly as his hearing loss progressed, Senator Eagleton readjusted his sensory focus and became an enthusiastic connoisseur of visual art. He visited museums and galleries, and filled his home and office (and, to the delight of his colleagues, the corridors and rooms surrounding his office) with a hand-picked collection of paintings, photographs, and posters. Eagleton the passionate policymaker, and Eagleton the art collector, may seem like two different persons, or at least two quite different personas of a multi-faceted man. But there are many connections between art and politics— and in particular between art and political persuasion—at least one of which was a lifelong passion of Senator Eagleton. Political cartoons are born at the confluence of art and politics. Senator Eagleton loved crafty and effective editorial cartoons. He collected cartoons, * Mark Sableman is a partner with Thompson Coburn LLP in St. Louis, Missouri. He is an honors graduate of Georgetown University Law Center where he was Articles Editor of the Georgetown Law Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Relations on the Net.Pdf
    Public Relations on the Net Winning Strategies to Inform and Influence the Media, the Investment Community, the Government, the Public, and More! Second Edition Shel Holtz American Management Association New York • Atlanta • Brussels • Buenos Aires • Chicago • London • Mexico City San Francisco • Shanghai • Tokyo • Toronto • Washington, D.C. Special discounts on bulk quantities of AMACOM books are available to corporations, professional associations, and other organizations. For details, contact Special Sales Department, AMACOM, a division of American Management Association, 1601 Broadway, New York, NY 10019. Tel.: 212-903-8316. Fax: 212-903-8083. Web site: www.amacombooks.org This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Various names used by companies to distinguish their software and other products can be claimed as trademarks. AMACOM uses such names throughout this book for editorial purposes only, with no intention of trademark violation. All such software or product names are in initial capital letters or ALL CAPITAL letters. Individual companies should be contacted for complete information regarding trademarks and registration. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Holtz, Shel. Public relations on the Net: winning strategies to inform and influence the media, the investment community, the government, the public, and more! / Shel Holtz.—2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8144-7152-8 (pbk.) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Beebe ‐ Trademark Law: an Open‐Source Casebook Part III 1 III. Defenses to Trademark Infringement and Related
    Beebe ‐ Trademark Law: An Open‐Source Casebook III. Defenses to Trademark Infringement and Related Limitations on Trademark Rights ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Descriptive Fair Use ............................................................................................................... 3 1. Descriptive Fair Use and Consumer Confusion ................................................ 4 KP Permanent Make‐Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. .................... 5 2. The Three‐Step Test for Descriptive Fair Use ................................................ 10 Dessert Beauty, Inc. v. Fox ................................................................................. 10 Kelly‐Brown v. Winfrey ....................................................................................... 22 3. Further Examples of Descriptive Fair Use Analyses .................................... 48 International Stamp Art v. U.S. Postal Service ......................................... 48 Bell v. Harley Davidson Motor Co. .................................................................. 50 Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret .................................................. 51 B. Nominative Fair Use ........................................................................................................... 53 1. The Three‐Step Test for Nominative Fair Use ................................................ 53 Toyota
    [Show full text]