In 2003, the United States Supreme Court decided Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., narrowing the scope of protection under the federal Lanham Act for “reverse passing off.” “Reverse passing off” is derived from the statutory language in § 43(a) of the Lanham Act prohibiting a “false designation of origin” that is likely to cause consumer confusion and generally occurs where one company puts forth another company’s product as its own. A “reverse passing off” claim was also thought to be feasible against one who misrepresented the source of the creative or communicative work embodied in a product. In Dastar, however, the Court limited the ability to bring a claim of “reverse passing off” by narrowly defining the term “origin,”...
On June 11, 2012, in University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art, Inc., the U.S. Court o...
On May 4, 2011, in Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Nint...
[Excerpt] “As the Supreme Court recently confirmed in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,...
During the past twenty years, courts have increasingly come to accept a cause of action for reverse...
This Article examines the application of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act to claims of reverse passin...
Until recently, the question of whether §43 of the Lanham Act prevented the unaccredited copying of ...
A series of recent cases implicate the extent to which trademark law can be used to control creative...
In Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Justice Scalia colorfully warned against resort ...
In order to protect creativity, the development of products, and access to the marketplace, the Nint...
In Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide...
In the case of Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 37 Sup. Ct. 416, the Supreme Court ...
Integral to the success of a business is its ability to protect its trademark. When another individu...
Offensive collateral estoppel occurs when a plaintiff estops a defendant from relitigating an issue ...
In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, the United States Supreme Court ap- -proved the offensive, unilate...
The intellectual property community is buzzing about a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals ...
On June 11, 2012, in University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art, Inc., the U.S. Court o...
On May 4, 2011, in Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Nint...
[Excerpt] “As the Supreme Court recently confirmed in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,...
During the past twenty years, courts have increasingly come to accept a cause of action for reverse...
This Article examines the application of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act to claims of reverse passin...
Until recently, the question of whether §43 of the Lanham Act prevented the unaccredited copying of ...
A series of recent cases implicate the extent to which trademark law can be used to control creative...
In Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Justice Scalia colorfully warned against resort ...
In order to protect creativity, the development of products, and access to the marketplace, the Nint...
In Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide...
In the case of Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 37 Sup. Ct. 416, the Supreme Court ...
Integral to the success of a business is its ability to protect its trademark. When another individu...
Offensive collateral estoppel occurs when a plaintiff estops a defendant from relitigating an issue ...
In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, the United States Supreme Court ap- -proved the offensive, unilate...
The intellectual property community is buzzing about a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals ...
On June 11, 2012, in University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art, Inc., the U.S. Court o...
On May 4, 2011, in Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Nint...
[Excerpt] “As the Supreme Court recently confirmed in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,...