Posts Tagged ‘trademarks’

Penn Law to Louis Vuitton: zip that nastygram

A student organization at Penn Law created a poster for a fashion-law event playing off the well-known design of luggage-and-handbag purveyor Louis Vuitton. Lawyers for the luxury firm fired off a cease-and-desist letter, but the Penn law department declined to comply, a stance that Eugene Volokh finds persuasive: ” I think the use of the marks can’t qualify as dilution, is unlikely to confuse, and is likely to be a fair use in any event.” Another view: Ron Coleman (dilution a possibility).

Super Bowl (TM) trademark controversy XLVI, or even higher

Ron Coleman has yet another installment in the ongoing annual saga of legal jeopardy for organizations that promote their wares (big-screen TVs, snacks) by referring to a certain football weekend event as the “Super Bowl,” rather that dodge behind the phrase “Big Game” or something equivalent. He corrects Consumer Reports on its assertion that the law provides an exemption for “news organizations,” which is not actually the case, though many uses by news organizations would in practice be exempted as fair use. Earlier here, etc.

More: “It’s Time to Stand Up to the NFL and Call It the Superbowl” [Paul Alan Levy]

“SOPA: An Architecture for Censorship”

The proposed law is being promoted as a way of blocking piratical “rogue” sites, but once it’s up and working, and internet providers have begun automatically blocking sites from a list continually updated by the government, it won’t stop with copyright and trademark infringers. Extending the interdiction to other sorts of sites will be a relatively simple and straightforward matter:

With the legal framework in place, expanding it to cover other conduct — obscenity, defamation, “unfair competition,” patent infringement, publication of classified information, advocacy in support of terror groups — would be a matter of adding a few words to those paragraphs.

How long before a sentimental Congress yields to demands to block suicide- or anorexia-promotion sites, or perhaps those accused of glorifying the taking of illegal drugs or profiting from depictions of animal cruelty? [Julian Sanchez, Cato, more; earlier] More: Stephen DeMaura and David Segal, Roll Call (potential use against political candidates), Bill Wilson (ALG), The Hill, Stanford Law Review, “Don’t Break the Internet”.

Chick-Fil-A vs. “Eat More Kale,” cont’d

Paul Alan Levy finds it hard to sympathize with either side of the much-noted trademark dispute, and notes that before the restaurant chain sicced its lawyers on him, Vermont t-shirt silk-screener Bo Muller-Moore had himself sought to trademark the “Kale” version of the slogan: “why should Muller-Moore be able to prevent other members of the public from making T-shirts with the same slogan?” [CL&P, earlier]