Skip to content

Trademark Law – Fall 2023

trademark

This is the home page for LAW 5694 – Trademark Law for the Fall 2023 edition of the course.

The course will meet on Mondays and Wednesdays from 10:30 am to 11:50 am. The class will meet on Zoom rather than face to face. Class meetings will be recorded, and the class recordings will be posted afterward to YouTube.

How to read the syllabus and find the reading assignments

One assignment per class. Except as noted below, each assignment below corresponds tentatively to one class period, though the amount of material to be covered in class, the order of the assignments, and/or the contents of a particular assignment may be changed by prior announcement. Every effort will be made to incorporate new developments in trademark law into the syllabus, where appropriate.

The reading materials are online. All of the assigned and optional readings for the course are available online, for free. You can read them online. You can download them to your own device(s). You can print them out. You can even combine them and have them printed and bound, as your own “book” copy. And, of course, you can edit them, annotate them, and cut them and paste them (or parts of them) in other things, such as course outlines. See the Important Course Information page for detailed information about the reading materials. Most of the assigned materials are available on this page as both .DOCX and .PDF files. A handful are available only ad .PDF files.

How to read [new for Fall 2023]. Students still have lots to learn and lots to practice when it comes to reading primary source materials – cases and statutes – in law. How to Read a Legal Opinion by Professor Orin Kerr (UC Berkeley Law School) is an excellent primer when it comes to making sense of a single case. When it comes to making sense of a body of cases, additional tools are needed. My best initial advice is this: read each case both for its function (“what’s the rule?” “what’s the holding?” “what are the relevant facts?”) and also as literature. That may involve read the case twice, or even three times. As you would do with a novel or a poem, bear in mind that reading involves making sense of settings, characters, motivations, conflicts, and resolutions. Stories, in other words. Stories require reader involvement, meaning both you and also others. What you take away from a novel is based in part on what you know about what other people (teachers, friends, family, colleagues, reviewers) take away from it. Interpretation is an ongoing, collective, collaborative process. Law often operates the same way: you can and should read cases for what they say about other, earlier cases, teaching you what those other cases “mean” as they exist in the world over time.

Extras. Many of the assignments include links to optional (but possibly entertaining and useful) supplemental material.  Some provides historical context for the assigned cases. Some consists of clips from motion pictures and television shows that illustrate trademark themes.  There are music videos. In some cases, these, too, illustrate the assigned readings.  In some cases, they are (one hopes) funny takes on relevant legal points.  Some of the optional material contains spicy and/or possibly offensive [NSFW] – but contextually appropriate – language, sounds, and/or images.

Look up the statute. Within each assignment, the syllabus notes the required reading, including the principal case(s) covered in the text. In addition to the assigned readings, where a case or other material refers to the Lanham Act (Title 15 of the United States Code), students are responsible for locating and reading the section(s) of the Act to which the text refers.  At least two, free online resources are available for that purpose:  One is this free, online version of the Lanham Act.  Two is Intellectual Property: Law & The Information Society / Selected Statutes & Treaties / 2019 Edition (James Boyle & Jennifer Jenkins, eds.). 

Have some theory! For several of the units of reading, optional law review articles are included. Some of these are relatively short. Some are quite long. Reading some or all of them will give students a deeper picture of the current state of trademark law, practice, and policy than students will get by focusing on appellate cases and the statute alone.

Why the optional materials? Learning and knowing the law is difficult, but it is never enough. Great lawyers need to learn and know context. Trademark law, like any body of law, exists to solve social problems. As a solution, it may not work terribly well, and it may create additional problems, but we start by talking about the problems that trademark evolved to solve. We talk about other dimensions of those problems and their solutions. Trademark conflicts and trademark negotiations exist in companies, in markets, and among human beings. History matters. Culture matters. Economics and business matter. Systems matter. Other bodies of law matter, beyond trademark and beyond intellectual property. Great lawyers need to learn how to investigate those things and how they relate to their clients and the problems that their clients are trying to solve.

Day by day syllabus and reading assignments

THE CLASSICAL OR TRADITIONAL MODEL OF TRADEMARK LAW BEGINS HERE

trademark

TOPIC 1: THE PROBLEMS THAT TRADEMARK SOLVES (OR DOESN’T, OR CREATES)

Optional legal scholarship: Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., Trademark Monopolies, 48 Emory L.J. 367 (1999)

Class 1 (the first day of class): An Introduction to Trademark’s Institutional Settings; Foundations, Purposes, and Illustrations

Required Readings

Optional Materials

Class 2: The Intersection of Law and Business: The Requirement that Trademarks Be Linked to “Goodwill,” and the Policing and Monitoring that Follow 

Required Readings

  • (Supplemental download) Introduction to Goodwill [PDF] // [DOCX] [6 pp.]
  • Beebe Casebook: Goodwill, Abandonment, Naked Licensing, and First Sale [49 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.; Crash Dummy Movie, LLC v. Mattel, Inc.; FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network; Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan; Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders; Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp.; Hamilton International Ltd. v. Vortic LLC)
  • BMW v. TurboSquid: a summary
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

trademark

TOPIC 2: WHAT IS A TRADEMARK? CREATION OF TRADEMARK RIGHTS

Class 3: The Distinctiveness Spectrum 

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Distinctiveness [26 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.; Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc.; Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 4: Acquired Distinctiveness and Generic Marks

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Acquired Distinctiveness and Generic Marks [32 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Frosty Treats Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America; Cartier, Inc. v. Four Star Jewelry Creations, Inc.; Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Smack Apparel Co.; United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.;)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 5: Distinctiveness and Non-Verbal Marks 

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Nonverbal Marks [56 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.; Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc.; Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc.; In re Slokevage; LVL XIII Brands, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.; McKernan v. Burek; Best Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Made Simple, Inc.; Fedders Corp. v. Elite Classics; In re SnoWizard, Inc.; In re Frankish Enterprises Ltd.; Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp.; Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage; Fiji Water Co., LLC v. Fiji Mineral Water USA, LLC; In re Frankish Enterprises Ltd.; Star Industries, Inc. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 6: Bars to Protection: Functionality 

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Functionality [55 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (In re Morton‐Norwich Products, Inc.; Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc.; TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.; Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.; Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Industries, L.P.; Pagliero v. Wallace China Co.; Wallace Int’l Silversmiths, Inc. v. Godinger Silver Art Co.; Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 7: Bars to Protection: Deceptive and Disparaging Marks 

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Deceptive and Disparaging Marks [41 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (In re Nieves & Nieves LLC; Matal v. Tam; Iancu v. Brunetti)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 8: Problem Set #1 

Required: Be prepared to discuss the material here [PDF] // [DOCX].

Optional: This checklist of key trademark issues may be helpful. [PDF] // [DOCX]

Class 9: Use in Commerce 

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Use in Commerce [24 pp.] [PDF] [DOCX] (Aycock Engineering, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc.; Couture v. Playdom, Inc.; Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 10: The Registration Process  

Required Readings

Optional Materials

Assignment Number One will be distributed around this time. The Assignment will be due on Friday, October 6, 2023.

Class 11: The Geographic Scope of Trademark Rights  

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Geographic Scope [56 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (National Ass’n for Healthcare Communications, Inc. v. Central Arkansas Area Agency on Aging, Inc.; Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc.; Person’s Co., Ltd. v. Christman; Grupo Gigante v. Dallo & Co., Inc.; Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

trademark

TOPIC 3: ENFORCEMENT OF TRADEMARK RIGHTS, AND DEFENSES TO ENFORCEMENT

Optional legal scholarship: Mark A. Lemley & Mark McKenna, Irrelevant Confusion, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 413 (2010)

Class 12:  Trademark Infringement – Use in Commerce and Likelihood of Confusion

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Likelihood of Confusion [25 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Borden Ice Cream Co. v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co.; Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp.; Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 13:  Actionable Use and Functioning as a Mark

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Actionable Use [22 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Rescuecom Corp. v. Google; Radiance Foundation, Inc. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) AND
  • Beebe Casebook: Failure to Function as a Mark [9 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (In re Lee Greenwood)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 14:  Confusion-Based Infringement: Sponsorship or Affiliation

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Sponsorship or Affiliation [19 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Int’l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC; Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Smack Apparel Co.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 15: Confusion-Based Infringement: Reverse Confusion and Reverse Passing Off

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Reverse Confusion [39 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 16: Permissible Uses: Descriptive Fair Use

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Descriptive Fair Use [27 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.; Dessert Beauty, Inc. v. Fox; SportFuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.; International Stamp Art v. U.S. Postal Service; Bell v. Harley Davidson Motor Co.; Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 17: Remedies

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Remedies [20 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Nichino America, Inc. v. Valent U.S.A. LLC; Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 18: Problem Set #2 

Required: Be prepared to discuss the material here [PDF] // [DOCX].

Optional: This checklist of key trademark issues may be helpful. [PDF] // [DOCX]

CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE CLASSICAL OR TRADITIONAL MODEL OF TRADEMARK LAW BEGIN HERE

trademark

TOPIC 4: NOVEL AND EXPANSIVE THEORIES OF TRADEMARK LIABILITY

Optional legal scholarship: Barton Beebe, Intellectual Property Law and the Sumptuary Code, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 809 (2010)

Class 19: Confusion Away From the Point of Sale

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Initial Interest Confusion [16 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Select Comfort Corporation v. Baxter; Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, L.L.C.) AND
  • Beebe Casebook: Post-Sale Confusion [12 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Ferrari S.P.A. v. Roberts)
  • (Supplemental download) Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com [7 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX]
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 20: Non-Confusion Based Trademark Liability Theories: Dilution by Blurring

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Dilution by Blurring [13 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Assignment Number Two will be distributed around this time. The Assignment will be due on Friday, November 10, 2023.

Class 21: Non-Confusion Based Trademark Liability Theories: Dilution by Tarnishment

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Dilution by Tarnishment [12 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 22: Non-Confusion Based Trademark Liability Theories: Cybersquatting

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Cybersquatting [24.pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc.; Lamparello v. Falwell; Pinterest, Inc. v. Pinerest.com c/o Whois Privacy Svcs. Pty Ltd/Ian Townsend; Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 23: Permissible Use: Nominative Use

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Nominative Use [23 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari; Int’l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC; Liquid Glass Enterprises, Inc. v. Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG; Toho Co., Ltd. v. William Morrow & Co., Inc.; Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions; Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University & Mechanical College v. Smack Apparel Co.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 24: Permissible Use: Expressive Use

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Expressive Use [60 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC; MPS Entm’t, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.; Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc.; Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.; VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc.; Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Hyundai Motor Am.; Louis Vuitton Malletier v. My Other Bag, Inc.)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 25: Secondary Liability

Required Readings

  • Beebe Casebook: Secondary Liability [31 pp.] [PDF] // [DOCX] (Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.; Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp.; Luxottica Group, S.P.A. v. Airport Mini Mall, LLC)
  • Slides
  • Video of the class

Optional Materials

Class 26: Problem Set #3 

Required: Be prepared to discuss the material here [PDF] // [DOCX].

Optional: This checklist of key trademark issues may be helpful. [PDF] // [DOCX]

Assignment Number Three will be distributed during the last week of class. The Assignment will be due on the last day of exams, which is December 8, 2023.