Return to the Boston College Home Page
 
Law School
BCInfo    A to Z    SEARCH    DIRECTORIES    CONTACT BC
 
 
bc home > schools > law > fac-staff > deans-faculty > liu > liu home > courses > trademark 02f >
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
»
Syllabus
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 


Textbooks
I. Introduction - Overview and Theories
II. Subject Matter - What Can Be Trademarked
III. Establishing Rights - How Do You Get Trademark Rights
IV. Establishing Rights - Trademark Registration Procedures
V. Losing Trademark Rights
VI. Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement
VII. Other Rights Against Unfair Competition
VIII. Lawful Uses and Defenses
IX. Remedies
X. International
XI. Summary

TEXTBOOKS

Jane Ginsburg, et al., Trademark and Unfair Competition Law (3d ed. 2001)
Jane Ginsburg, et al., Trademark and Unfair Competition Law (Stat. App. 2002)
Handouts in Class (Periodically)


I. INTRODUCTION

Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's (1-11 only); Brown (70-75); Landes & Posner (75-78); Litman (78-82); Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's (12-30 only); Borchard (44-57 skim); Lanham Act (supp. skim structure)


II. SUBJECT MATTER - WHAT CAN BE TRADEMARKED

A. Types of Marks

Lanham Act 45 (supp.) (definition of "trademark" only); Restatement (83-84); Kellogg v. National Biscuit (84-89); Qualitex v. Jacobson (96-106); Other Identifying Indicia (106-108); Service Marks (225-226); Collective and Certification Marks (226-229)

B. Distinctiveness

Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World (108-112); "Technical Trademarks" (112); Application of Reynolds Metal (112-114); In the Matter of Quik-Print (114-118); International Kennel Club v. Mighty Star (118-125); Restatement (125-126); Rock & Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile (126-134)

C. Trade Dress

Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (510-519); Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros. (519-525); Lanham Act 2(e)(5) (286-87); In Re Morton-Norwich (287-294); In re Weber-Stephen Prod. (296-307); Lanham Act 43(a)(3) (525); TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays (525-533); Leatherman Tool v. Cooper (533-534); "Aesthetic Functionality" (534-538)


III. ESTABLISHING RIGHTS - HOW DO YOU GET TRADEMARK RIGHTS?

A. Use in Commerce

Procter & Gamble v. Johnson & Johnson (134-146); Lanham Act 45 (146-147); Larry Harmon Pictures v. Williams Restaurant (147-151); Buti v. Impressa Perosa, (151-155)

B. Priority and Concurrent Use

Blue Bell v. Farah Mf'g (162-170); Shalom Children's Wear v. In-Wear (170-174); Maryland Stadium Authority v. Becker (174-177); United Drug v. Theodore Rectanus (177-182); Thrifty Rent-A-Car v. Thrift Cars (182-188); Dawn Donut v. Hart's Food Stores (188-191)

C. Intent to Use

Lanham Act 1(b) (191); S. Rep. No. 100-515 (191-198); Zirco v. AT&T (198-201); WarnerVision v. Empire of Carolina (201-205); Eastman Kodak v. Bell & Howell (205-209); In re Trademark Application of American Psychological Assoc. (209-210); Racing Champions v. Mattel (210-214)


IV. ESTABLISHING RIGHTS - TRADEMARK REGISTRATION PROCEDURES

A. Process

Borchard (214-221); Advantages of Trademark Registration on Principal Register (221-222); Supplemental Register (222-223); Notice of Registration (223-224); Maintenance and Renewal (224-225)

B. Bars to Registration

Lanham Act 2 (supplement); Lanham Act 2(a) (229); In re Bad Frog Brewery (229-231); Harjo v. Pro-Football (231-249); Lanham Act 2(d) (257); Nutrasweet v. K&S Foods (257-260); Lanham Act 2(e) (269-270); American Waltham Watch v. U.S. Watch (270-272); In re Nantucket (272-277); In re Bacardi (277-280); Geographically Suggestive Marks (281); Lanham Act 2(e)(4) (281-282); Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (282); In re Quadrillion Publishing (282-285); Numerals, Letters and Initials (285-286)


V. LOSING TRADEMARK RIGHTS

A. Genericism

Bayer v. United Drug (312-316); Protecting Trademarks Against Genericism (317-328); King-Seeley Thermos v. Aladdin (328-332); De Facto Secondary Meaning (335-336); America Online v. AT&T (336-346); Text (349-350); Dial 1-800-Generic (353-355)

B. Abandonment

Lanham Act 45 (356); Silverman v. CBS (356-363); The Song is Ended (363-368); Clark & Freeman v. Heartland (368-371); Yocum v. Covington (371-374); University Bookstore v. Board of Regents (374-377); Questions (377); Problem (377-78); Trademark Licensing Provisions (378-383)


VI. TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT

A. Likelihood of Confusion

1. Basic Factors

Lanham Act 32(1) (391); Polaroid v. Polarad (391-393); Nabisco v. Warner-Lambert (393-395); Text (395-400); E&J Gallo Winery v. Consorzio del Gallo Nero (400-407); Banfi v. Kendall-Jackson (407-416); Text (416-421); Playboy v. Netscape (421-423); Mobil Oil v. Pegasus Petroleum (424-431); The Network Network v. CBS (431-438); Playboy v. Netscape (438-439); Playboy v. Universal Tel-A-Talk (439-440); Questions (440)

2. Trade Dress; Secondary and Reverse Confusion

Conopco v. May Dept. Stores (555-565); Mastercrafters Clock & Radio v. Vacheron (440-442); Blockbuster Entertainment v. Laylco (443-445); Harlem Wizards v. NBA (448-451); Dreamwerks Production v. SKG Studio (451-454)

B. Contributory Infringement

Hard Rock Cafe v. Concession Serv. (460-466); Vicarious Liability (466)

C. Statutory Defenses

Lanham Act 15 (474-475); Park 'N Fly v. Dollar Park and Fly (475-485); Defenses to Incontestably Registered Marks (485-488); Text (488-489); United States Shoe v. Brown Group (489-493)


VII. OTHER RIGHTS AGAINST UNFAIR COMPETITION

A. False Designation of Origin

Lanham Act 43(a)(1)(A) (504)

B. Dilution

Ringling Bros. v. Celozzi-Ettelson (697-701); Mead Data v. Toyota (701-707); Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods. (707-712); Hormel Foods v. Jim Henson Prods. (712-715); Lanham Act 43(c), 45 (696-697); Ringling Bros. v. B.E. Windows (715-719); Ringling Bros. v. Utah Division of Travel (719-724); Eli Lilly v. Natural Answers (724-727); Avery Dennison v. Sumpton (732-737); Hershey Foods v. Mars (740-743); Nabisco v. PF Brands (750-764)

C. Comparative and False Advertising

Text (569-570); Smith v. Chanel (570-578); Lanham Act 43(a)(1)(B) (583-584); Coca-Cola v. Tropicana (585-589); United Indus. v. Clorox (589-590); Clorox v. Proctor & Gamble (590-599)

D. Attribution and Publicity

Gilliam v. ABC (618-623); Lamothe v. Atlantic (631-632); Text (642-643); Allen v. National Video (643-651); White v. Samsung (657-668); Cardtoons v. MLBPA (678-688)

E. Internet Domain Names

Text (767-768); Lanham Act 43(d)(1) (768-770); Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market (770-777); Text (799-801); Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (801-806); CRS Tech. Corp. v. Condenet (812-814); Hewlett-Packard v. Burgar (814-817); Questions (824-825); Direct Line Group v. Purge (825-828)


VIII. LAWFUL USES AND DEFENSES

A. Referential Uses

Denicola (830); San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. U.S.O.C. (831-836); Dreyfuss (837-841); New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing (841-846); Patmont Motor Werks v. Gateway (846-848); Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Productions (848-851)

B. Trademarks as Products

Boston Professional Hockey v. Dallas Cap (851-856); International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg (856-860); Kozinski (860); Boston Athletic v. Sullivan (860-869); WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic (869-872); NFL Properties v. Playoff Corp. (873-874)

C. Parody

Mutual of Omaha v. Novak (874-881); Cliffs Notes v. Bantam Doubleday (881-889); Mattel v. MCA (893-900); Yankee Publishing v. News America (902-915)

D. Free Speech

Denicola (915-916); MGM-Pathe v. Pink Panther Patrol (916-924); Lucasfilm v. High Frontier (924-925); Planned Parenthood v. Bucci (925-927); Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky (927-930); WHS Enter. v. United Paperworkers (930-932); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney (932-937)


IX. REMEDIES

Soltex Polymer v. Fortex Indus. (947-952); Perfect Fit v. Acme Quilting (952-955); Foxtrap v. Foxtrap (956-959); Big O Tire Dealers v. Goodyear (964-968); Lanham Act 34(d) (979-982); 18 U.S.C. 2320 (982-983); U.S. v. Torkington (983-987); Chanel v. Italian Activewear (993-997)


X. INTERNATIONAL

Paris Convention (999-1000); Madrid System (1000-1004); EU Community Trademark System (1007-1008); Trademarks and International Trade (1008-1010); Lanham Act 42 (1013); Text (1013-1015); Person's v. Christman (1040-1045); Text (1050-1051); Steele v. Bulova Watch (1051-1053); Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton (1053-1062); Dinwoodie (1081-1084)


XI. SUMMARY

Back to Top

 
 
 

Updated: August 16, 2002
Maintained: Joseph P. Liu
URL: http://www2.bc.edu/~liujr/courses/tm02f/syllabus.html
2002 The Trustees of Boston College. Legal