Category Archives: Uncategorized

Dastar/preemption bars claims based on allegedly false claims of credit for innovation

OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. CV-16-03828, 2017 WL 1057924 (D. Ariz. Mar. 21, 2017) The parties compete in the market for LED lights. OptoLum claims to be the inventor of technology used inside LED bulbs allowing them to have … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Nursing homes’ claims are puffery

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC, No. 336 M.D. 2015, — A.3d —-, 2017 WL 1075535 (Comm. Ct. Pa. Mar. 22, 2017) Golden Gate manages and operates 36 skilled nursing facilities in Pennsylvania.  The Commonwealth sued … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

First Amendment bars labeling restriction for “skim milk” without added Vitamin A

Ocheesee Creamery LLC v. Putnam, 2017 WL 1046104, — F.3d —-, No. 16-12049 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) The Creamery here succeeded in its First Amendment claim to use the words “skim milk” to describe its product. The Creamery produces … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

TM scholars’ roundtable, part 4

Research directions in Trademark Law 2017-2018 Discussants:    Bill McGeveran: History of scholarly productivity coming 1-2 years after the roundtables as seeds germinated.  Agenda-setting: boundary issues and registration.  Territorial/product dimensions; the consumers; design—picking up on something already in the air, but … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

TM Scholars’ roundtable part 3

Fame, Reputation and “Well-Known-ness” Mark Janis: is fame something distinguishable from distinctiveness, or is it merely the highest degree of distinctiveness?  Possible topics: dilution thresholds v. well-known marks thresholds.  Coach v. Triumph, Fed. Cir., Coach handbags and Coach tutoring services. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

TM scholars’ roundtable part 2

Session 2: Proxies for Distinctiveness; Proving Distinctiveness (and Secondary meaning); Strength of a Mark Do current doctrinal tests properly assess actual consumer reaction to purported marks? What is and should be the role of consumer surveys in proving secondary meaning … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

TM scholars’ roundtable

Ninth Trademark Scholars Roundtable: Distinctiveness, Secondary Meaning, Reputation And Fame Chicago-Kent College of Law Session 1:       Distinctiveness (including Secondary Meaning) as a Legal Concept Introduction:   Barton Beebe: different approaches. Any general claims about distinctiveness must take into account: eligibility for … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment