43(B)log

NOVEMBER 8, 2023

I’m going to talk briefly about last term’s Jack Daniels case—a trademark infringement and dilution case—as well as Elster, argued last week, in which the Justices appeared inclined to reject a First Amendment challenge to the refusal to register the claimed mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for t-shirts. Trademark: In Jack Daniel’s v.

False Advertising 75

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Trademark 75

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 16, 2024

Panel #2, TM, moderated by Vice Dean Felix Wu Jack Daniels says that use as a trademark is special: like copyright’s bête noire, confusion caused by trademark use is the central concern of trademark law. That doesn’t mean that 43(a) couldn’t go beyond classic trademark protection. Then, in Lexmark v.

Trademark 59

Trademark Fair Use Registration False Advertising 59

43(B)log

OCTOBER 4, 2021

Another way to put it is that aesthetic functionality requires you to have an understanding of the definition of the market in which other clothing makers should be free to compete. This analysis does make some sense, but raises the question of what the how to identify what counts as a “significant” disadvantage.

IP 94

IP Trademark Advertising Advertising 94

SpicyIP

DECEMBER 30, 2023

The Court held that “diagnostic” under Section 3(i) should neither be construed narrowly, limited to only in-vivo or definitive diagnosis, nor broadly to include any process “relating to” diagnosis. The central issue here was whether Section 3(i) is restricted to only in vivo tests practices on the human body. Bolt Technology v.

IP 124

IP Copyright Trademark Intellectual Property 124