BostonCollege – Spring 2009Trademark and Unfair Competition LawProfessor Joseph Liu
Trademark and Unfair Competition Law
(Spring 2009 – LL41401)
Professor Joseph Liu
BostonCollegeLawSchool
Texts
.Jane Ginsburg, et al., Trademark and Unfair Competition Law: Cases and Materials (4th ed. 2007)
.Handouts in Class (Periodically)
Guidelines and Requirements
A.Grading
1.Exam
The grade for the class will be based on a take-home final exam. The exam will be open-book. In addition, very high-quality participation (as described in more detail in the next section) can result in a half-grade increase (e.g. from B to B+, from B+ to A-, etc.).
2.Paper Option
Students have the option of writing an additional 15-page paper for this course. You must let me know by the end of the add/drop period whether you intend to write a paper. If you do, you will get one additional academic credit for the course (making this a 3-credit course). The grade for the paper will constitute 1/3 of your final grade (with the final exam constituting the remaining 2/3). The due dates for the paper are as follows: Topic – February 9, Outline – February 23, First Draft – April 6, Final Draft - April 27.
B.Participation
Participation in class will be handled primarily using a panel system. You must sign up to be on a panel for two classes. The classes should be spaced apart (i.e. not back-to-back, ideally in different months). Those who are on the panel for a given class will be on call for that class and should be prepared to summarize, analyze and discuss the readings. However, I will expect those not on call to be prepared for class as well. Lack of preparation without prior notice may be counted against you in your final grade for the course. Conversely, quality (not quantity of) participation, both volunteered and called-upon, will be counted in your favor.
C.Class Web Site
The class web site is: . I have posted there a copy of this syllabus and will later post both the panel schedule and copies of the in-class power point presentations.
D.Contact Information & Office Hours
E-Mail:
Phone:617-552-6377
Office:East Wing, 313
Hours:Mondays, 1:30-3 p.m. or make an appointment
Syllabus
I.Introduction – Overview and Theories1 [17]
Quality Inns Int’l v. McDonald’s (handout); Brown (29-34); Landes & Posner (34-38); Litman (38-42); Borchard (16-21)
II.Subject Matter – What Can Be Trademarked?
A.Types of Marks1[24]
Restatement (43-44); Kellogg v. National Biscuit (44-49); Qualitex v. Jacobson (63-73); Other Identifying Indicia (73-76); Service Marks (54-55); Collective and Certification Marks (55-59)
B.Distinctiveness[18]
Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World (78-82); In the Matter of Quik-Print (82-84);In re Oppedahl & Larson (84-87); American Waltham Watch v. United States Watch (87-89);International Kennel Club v. Mighty Star (89-95); Restatement (95-96)
C.Trade Dress and Functionality1[43]
Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (481-89); Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros. (489-96); Lanham Act § 43(a)(3) (496); Tie Tech v. Kinedyne (496-98); TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays (498-504); Eco Manufacturing v. Honeywell (504-06); Au-Tomotive Gold v. Volkswagen (506-15); Lanham Act §2(e)(5) (264); In re Howard Leight Indus. (265-71); In re Gibson Guitar (271-73)
III.Establishing Rights – How Do You Get Trademark Rights?
A.Use in Commerce1[18]
Procter & Gamble v. Johnson & Johnson (112-22); Lanham Act § 45 (122-23); Larry Harmon Pictures v.WilliamsRestaurant (123-26); Maryland Stadium Authority v. Becker (126-30)
B.Priority and Concurrent Use[21]
Blue Bell v. Farah Mf’g (140-48); United Drug v. Theodore Rectanus (158-63); Thrifty Rent-A-Car v. Thrift Cars (163-69); Dawn Donut v. Hart’s Food (168-71)
IV.Establishing Rights – Trademark Registration Procedures
A.Intent to Use1[27]
Borchard (172-77); Text (177-87); Lanham Act § 1(b) (187); S. Rep. No. 100-515 (187-90); WarnerVision v. Empire of Carolina (193-98); Eastman Kodak v. Bell & Howell (198-202)
B.Bars to Registration[22]
Lanham Act § 2(a) (203); In re Bad Frog Brewery (204-07);McDermott v. San Francisco Women’s Motorcycle (207-10);Pro-Football v. Harjo (210);In re Squaw Valley (210-16);Lanham Act § 2(d) (232); Lanham Act § 2(e) (248); In re Joint-Stock Company “Baik” (248-52); Lanham Act §2(e)(4) (260); In re Quadrillion Publishing (260-64)
V.Losing Trademark Rights
A.Genericism1[26 (21)]
Bayer v. United Drug (274-78); Protecting Trademarks Against Genericism (278-84); King-Seeley Thermos v. Aladdin (284-85); E.I. DuPont v. Yoshida (285-90); America Online v. AT&T (290-99); Dial 1-800-GENERIC (304-05)
B.Abandonment[24]
Lanham Act § 45 (305-06); Silverman v. CBS (306-11); The Song is Ended (313-16); Clark & Freeman v. Heartland (316-20); Barcamerica v. Tyfield (320-26);Trademark Licensing Provisions (326-31)
VI.Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement
A.Likelihood of Confusion
1.Basic Factors1[28]
Lanham Act §32(1) (332); Polaroid v. Polarad (332-36); E&J Gallo Winery v. Consorzio del Gallo Nero (336-43);Banfi Products v. Kendall-Jackson (343-52); Questions (355-56); Text (357-59); Text (361-33)
2.Trade Dress Confusion[22]
Best Cellars v. Grape Finds (519-31); Best Cellars v. Wine Made Simple (531-35); Conopco v. May Dept. Stores (535-41)
3.Types of Confusion1[25]
Mobil Oil v. Pegasus (363-68); Blockbuster v. Laylco (368-70); Playboy v. Netscape (370-77); Mastercrafters v. Vacheron (403-05); Harlem Wizards v. NBA (408-11); Dreamwerks Production v. SKG Studio (411-14); Attrezzi v. Maytag (414-17)
4.Trademark Use[17]
1-800 Contacts v. WhenU.com (377-81); 800-JR Cigar v. GoTo.com (381-90); J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding (390-91); Dinwoodie (391-92); Dogan (392-94)
B.Contributory Infringement1[12]
Inwood Labs v. Ives (417-23); Hard Rock Café Licensing v. Concession Serv. (423-28); Polo Ralph Lauren v. Chinatown Gift Shop (428-29)
C.Statutory Defenses[34]
Lanham Act § 15 (433-34); Park ‘N Fly v.DollarPark and Fly (434-42); Lanham Acct § 33 (442-46); United States Shoe v. Brown Group (449-53); Car Freshner Corp. v. S.C. Johnson & Son (453-57); KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression 457-62); New Kids on the Block v. News America (462-67)
VII.Other Rights Against Unfair Competition
A.False Designation of Origin1[14]
Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(A) (476); The Meaning of “Origin” (480-81); America Online v. LCGM (543-45); Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox (545-51); Bretford Mf’g v. Smith System (551-55)
B.Comparative and False Advertising[34]
Text (556-57); Smith v. Chanel (557-64); Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B) (569); Coca-Cola v. Tropicana (576-79); United Indus. v. Clorox (579-80);Schick v. Gillette (580-83); Polar Corp. v. Coca-Cola (592-93); Coors Brewing v. Anheuser-Busch (593-600); McNeil-PPC v. Pfizer (600-10)
C.Dilution1[48]
Stadler (613-19); Ty v. Perryman (619-23); Tushnet (623-31); Lanham Act § 43(c) (631-35); Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog (635-40); Ringling Bros v. Utah Division (640-41); Hershey Foods v. Mars (641-44); Ringling Bros v. Celozzi-Ettleson (644-48); Mead Data Central v. Toyota Motor (648-54); Deere v. MTD Prods. (654-58); Hormel Foods v. Jim Henson Productions (658-61)
D.Cybersquatting1[45]
Weinberg (739-42); Litman (742-48); Lanham Act § 43(d)(1) (748-50); Sporty’s Farm v. Sportsman’s Market (750-57); Lucas Nursery v. Grosse (757-60); Text (760-65); Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (775-81); Orange Bowl Committee v. Front and Center (792-800); Direct Line v. Purge (800-04); Deutsche Welle v. Diamondware (804-06)
E.Merchandising1[15]
Kozinski (723-25); Boston Athletic Ass’n v. Sullivan (725-34); WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic (734-38)
VIII.Lawful Uses and Defenses
A.Referential Uses[22]
Denicola (816-17); San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. U.S.O.C. (817-23); Dreyfuss (823-27); New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing (827-28);Dow Jones v. International Securities (828); Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf (828-31);Playboy v. Welles (831-38)
B.Parody1[35 (28)]
Mutual of Omaha v. Novak (838-43); Cliffs Notes v. Bantam Doubleday (843-52);Anheuser-Busch v. Balducci (852-56);Yankee Publishing v. News America (856-58); MGM-Pathe v. Pink Panther Patrol (858-59);Mattel v.Universal Music (859-68);Mattel v. Walking Mountain (868-73)
C.Free Speech[31]
Denicola (873-74); Parks v. LaFace (874-85); MasterCard Int’l v. Nader 2000 (885-89); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney (896-904); Lamparello v. Falwell (904-911)
1