July 21, 2015 at 4:33 am #504Barton BeebeKeymaster
Version 2.0 of the 4-credit version of the casebook is now posted on the casebook website in .pdf and .doc formats.
Below is a summary of the updates included in Version 2.0. These updates are also listed in an easier-to-read .doc attached to this posting if that’s any help.
I’ll try to post redlines of the changes from Version 1.1 to Version 2.0 in the next few days (they’re big files so they need their own webpage apparently). I’ll also try to update the slides and other teaching materials in “Faculty Resources” sometime this week.
I realize a lot of you teach a 3-credit class so I’ll also think about some standard 3-credit version to distribute, probably based on Stacey’s previous 3-credit version.
Thanks to everyone who submitted suggested edits, additions, and corrections.
• Part I.A.1.a.iii: Added brief discussion of certification and collective marks.
• Part I.A.1.c: Deleted the lengthy Pilates opinion and added the Federal Circuit’s May 2015 opinion remanding Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC
• Part I.A.2.a: Added a short comment on color marks and non-English-speaking consumers.
• Part I.A.2.b.ii: Deleted what was the first question preceding In re Slokevage
• Part I.B: Added reference to In re Tam on § 43(a) protection being unavailable to marks that are barred from registration under § 2
• Part I.B.1.a: Substantially edited-down In re Morton-Norwich
• Part I.B.1.b.iii: Deleted Talking Rain and added Apple, Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, on functionality of Apple trade dress
• Part I.B.1.c: Corrected error in Louboutin in which footnote text was mistakenly included above the line in the body of the opinion.
• Part I.B.3.b: Added photo to In re Heeb Media; deleted Blackhorse as too long to be effective in class; added notes on cooptational speech and § 2(a) and on whether § 2(a) is unconstitutional
• Part I.B.4: Deleted the Benny Goodman case and replaced it with In re Nieves & Nieves on Kate Middleton
• Part I.D: Amended text to indicate that both § 44 and § 66(a) applications will be registered without a showing of use in commerce; amended text to expand briefly on the requirements for incontestability; added M.Z. Berger & Co, Inc. v. Swatch on bona fide intent to use; dropped a footnote on the effect of § 14 on federal courts; included an edited version of Park ‘N Fly
• Part II.B.4: Added brief excerpt from Smack Apparel after the Lemley & McKenna excerpt to try to balance against the L & M discussion
• Part II.B.5: In initial interest confusion section, replaced Network Automation with Multi Time Machine v. Amazon
• Part II.B.6: Edited-out secondary meaning paragraphs from Ferrari opinion
• Part II.B.9: Added note that PTO does not screen for conflicts with unregistered marks in ex parte examination
• Part II.C: Edited a bit the introduction of the concept of dilution
• Part II.C.1: Added a subsection on the fame requirement in antidilution law with an excerpt from Coach Services v. Triumph Learning; edited down the Nikepal opinion; deleted Chanel v. Makarcyzk
• Part III.A: Changed introductory language to account for dropping Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey
• Part III.A.2: Dropped Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey because of the new, not terribly interesting district court opinion in that case and replaced it with Sorensen v. WD-40
• Part III.B.1: Deleted paragraph from Fernandez’s concurrence that wasn’t relevant
• Part III.B.2: Added Liquid Glass photo (thanks to Laura Heymann)
• Part III.D.2.a: Reconfigured section to address abandonment through naked licensing specifically
• Part III.D.2.b: Added section on assignment in gross and added Sugar Busters opinion
• Part III.E: Deleted the dilution discussion from the Nitro Leisure opinion
• Part IV.A: Added reference to Lexmark v. Static
• Added note on EA’s decision to stop producing NCAA Football
• No changes
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.