scholarly journals The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense

Author(s):  
Mark Lemley

Trademark law has expanded dramatically in the last fifty years, with anumber of trends combining to give trademark owners something they havenever had before -- protection of marks akin to the protection given realproperty. Professor Lemley evaluates these changes, and suggests that theyare not supported by the economic learning on the functions of trademarksand advertising. He argues that many of these legal developments areunwarranted, particularly the cases which give trademark owners power toprevent political and social commentary, or to own the trademark as a thingin itself.

Author(s):  
Glynn S. Lunney

Over the last sixty years, courts and the USPTO have engaged in an ill-advised expansion of trademark subject matter. Where once only words or emblems attached to a product could serve as a trademark, today a product’s design or packaging itself may receive such protection. This expansion was and is a mistake. While there may be rare cases where a product’s design or packaging conveys brand-specific information and could receive protection without impairing competitor’s ability to offer substitutes, such cases are the exception and not the rule. By recognizing trade dress protection within the trademark law framework, courts and the USPTO have made the exception into the rule. Trade dress protection today has become an anticompetitive weapon that forecloses competition with no redeeming benefits. Courts and the USPTO should therefore correct their mistake and deny trade dress substantive protection under the Lanham Act, as Congress intended.


1999 ◽  
Vol 108 (7) ◽  
pp. 1687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Lemley
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-402
Author(s):  
Dustin Marlan

Our trademark law uses the term “consumer” constantly, reflexively, and unconsciously to label the subject of its purpose—the purchasing public. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, trademark law has “a specialized mission: to help consumers identify goods and services they wish to purchase, as well as those they want to avoid.” As one leading commentator puts it, “trademarks are a property of consumers’ minds,” and “the consumer, we are led to believe, is the measure of all things in trademark law.” Much criticism has been rightly levied against trademark law’s treatment of the consumer as passive, ignorant, and gullible. For instance, consumers are seen as requiring protection from any and all marketplace confusion and have no standing to sue under the Lanham Act. However, that a contributing factor to such treatment could be the linguistic bias stemming from the law’s label of the buying public as mere consumers—rather than, for instance, “citizens,” “persons,” “individuals,” or “humans”—has not, until now, been directly addressed. This Article urges those involved in trademark and advertising law—e.g., judges, lawyers, lawmakers, and scholars—to rethink our ubiquitous use of the derogatory consumer label. To this end, the Article first explores “consumer” as a dehumanizing, anti-ecological, and nonsensical metaphor for “one that utilizes economic goods.” It then examines social psychology experiments finding that use of “consumer” has potentially deleterious effects for society given the negative stereotypes that it engenders as a social categorization. The Article claims, by extension, that the implicit linguistic bias inherent in consumer rhetoric might contribute to trademark law defining the public in a manner that is patronizing, biased, insulting, and indulgent of likelihood-of- confusion claims. The Article suggests that we either work to phase out the “consumer” label and replace it with more appropriate terminology (e.g., “citizen”), or at least pause to acknowledge the word’s potentially biasing effects.


2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-26
Author(s):  
Ann Bartow

When I became aware of the emergent body of legal scholarship on menstruation related topics on which this Symposium builds, I thought that the authors of these articles were very brave.1 I’m an imperfect but life-long feminist and accepted the emotional challenge that writing this Essay posed for me out of gratitude to those authors. Because my principal scholarly focus is intellectual property law, I approached the topic through the lens of trademark law. Part One of this article positions this Essay firmly within the contours of the author’s life and personal experiences with menstruation. Part Two maps common trademark and branding practices related to tampons and sanitary napkins. Part Three explains that the Lanham Act does not offer legal mechanisms by which to challenge the federal registration of sexist trademarks. As with racist trademarks, amplified criticism and persistent public pressure are the main mechanisms available to foment positive change in the marketplace for feminine hygiene products.


2012 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Duguid

The introduction of collective and certification marks to U.S. law in 1946 by the Lanham Act has generally been regarded as an innovative and forward-looking step. Yet these marks had been widely used by individual states since the previous century, and international conventions had long been pushing the federal government to enact measures to protect them. Indeed, it may be stranger that the U.S. trademark law of 1905 did not include protection for such marks than that, forty years later, the Lanham Act did. In exploring why the law of 1905 failed to respond to widespread innovation, and why the Lanham Act was celebrated for fulfilling such a long-overdue obligation, this article raises questions about conventionally linear accounts of the development of trademark law and practice.


2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Nancy Walsh
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Thomas Paine
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document