-
Recent Posts
- WIPIP Panel 6: Design and Brand; Protectable Subject Matter; Copyright Theory and Doctrine II
- WIPIP Panel 5: Trademark Doctrine
- WIPIP Panel 4: Emerging Technologies
- “shipping protection fee” providing no extra protection was plausibly misleading drip pricing
- WIPIP Panel 3: Deepfakes, Celebrities, and Movies
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- June 2013
Categories
- 230
- acpa
- advertising
- antitrust
- art law
- attribution
- blogging
- california
- cfaa
- cfps
- class actions
- cmi
- comics
- commercial speech
- conferences
- consumer protection
- contracts
- copying
- copyright
- counterfeiting
- cultural property
- damages
- dastar
- defamation
- design patent
- dilution
- disclosures
- disparagement
- dmca
- drm
- fan fiction
- fanworks
- fda
- fees
- first amendment
- ftc
- geographic indications
- http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
- insurance
- jurisdiction
- libraries
- misappropriation
- music
- my lawsuits
- my writings
- parody
- patent
- patents
- preemption
- presentations
- privacy
- procedure
- reading list
- remedies
- right of publicity
- secondary liability
- securities
- standing
- surveys
- teaching
- tortious interference
- trade secrets
- trademark
- traditional knowledge
- Uncategorized
- unconscionability
- unfairness
- warranties
Meta
Tag Archives: design patent
TMSR, part 3
Session 3: Defining Marks in Trademark Law vs. Defining Subject Matter in Adjacent Areas of IP In formulating rules about defining marks in trademark law, what (if anything) can be learned from the longstanding debate about defining pictorial, graphic, and … Continue reading
WIPIP 2019, Plenary (designs)
Whole Designs, Sarah Burstein What is a “design for a useful article”? TLDR: it’s a whole article. Egyptian Goddess said the infringement test has to be sameness of appearance. Must appear substantially the same to the ordinary observer. Worst design … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged design patent, patent, Plenary (designs) conferences, privacy, WIPIP 2019
Leave a comment
Shoes and surveys (picture post)
Since apparently there was some question whether the shoes I asked about post-Star Athletica were really shoes, here is proof: Not much less functional than the average super-high heel Also, I randomly got selected for a trademark infringement survey on … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged design patent, Shoes and surveys (picture post) copyright, surveys, trademark
Leave a comment
Depressed sales and asserted loss of prestige aren’t irreparable harm
Puma SE v. Forever 21, Inc., No. 17-cv-02523 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2017) H/T Sarah Burstein. Puma sued Forever 21 for allegedly counterfeiting its Fenty line of shoes. (Puma asserted copyright infringement and design patent infringement as well as trademark … Continue reading
Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 4
Chris Buccafusco & Mark Lemley, Screening Functionality Commentators: Abraham Drassinower and Jim Gibson Gibson: regime shopping is even more troublesome than scope problems in one regime. Design patents seem to exist purely for regime shopping; everyone wants a patent right … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged copyright, design patent, Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 4 conferences, patent, trademark
Leave a comment
Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 2
Jeanne Fromer & Mark McKenna, Claiming Design Commentators: Sarah Burstein and Rebecca Tushnet RT: Great paper exploring the ways that different claiming regimes contribute to producers’ ability to maximize rights by claiming under multiple overlapping regimes, copyright, design patent, and … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged copyright, design patent, Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 2 conferences, trademark
Leave a comment
WIPIP, part 4
Mark McKenna & Jessica Silbey, Investigating Design: An Empirical Study of Industrial Design and IP Protection Interviews & institutional analysis. Hypothesis generating—anti-copying/copying practices, etc. Buccafusco: consider who’s in the sample—don’t limit to self-identified designers. Following career trajectories of design school … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged conferences, copyright, design patent, part 4 antitrust, WIPIP
Leave a comment
Notre Dame Law Review Symposium, Negotiating IP’s Boundaries in an Evolving World
Panel One – Moderated by Joseph D. Bauer Mark P. McKenna, Notre Dame Law School & Lucas S. Osborn, Campbell Law School, “Trademarks and Digital Goods” BMW sued Turbosquid for hosting digital models of BMW cars—models could be used in … Continue reading
Notre Dame Law Review Symposium, Negotiating IP’s Boundaries in an Evolving World
Panel One – Moderated by Joseph D. Bauer Mark P. McKenna, Notre Dame Law School & Lucas S. Osborn, Campbell Law School, “Trademarks and Digital Goods” BMW sued Turbosquid for hosting digital models of BMW cars—models could be used in … Continue reading