The Victoria's Secret case raised the hurdle for plaintiffs claiming dilution under the Lanham Act, generally making it much harder to prevail in a federal dilution action. The Supreme Court followed the plain meaning of the statute in interpreting the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) [Sec. 43(c) of the Lanham Act] to require a showing of "actual dilution" in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (hereinafter "Victoria's Secret"). The Supreme Court got to this position in part by contrasting 43(c) with the language of state dilution laws, which in many cases do not require actual dilution (and recognize tarnishment, besides). Some state laws can, in theory, help plaintiffs with a dilution claim. This article examines how this is actually playing out.
- July 12, 2004Jane Shay Wald
Given the expense and burden of resolving false advertising cases in federal court, the promise of an expedient and less expensive alternate forum invites attention. Adding to speed and thrift an assurance that ads will be assessed by experts in the field makes the forum more interesting still. What is this alluring avenue of adjudication? For 33 years, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD) has sought to provide just such a mechanism. Yet, even for long-time veterans of federal proceedings, the NAD may be terra incognita. One recent decision by the NAD, In re Distillerie Stock USA Ltd., NAD Case No. 4197 (June 2004), reveals both benefits and drawbacks of the forum, particularly in how some familiar yet some unique allocations of the burdens of proof can produce results both similar to and quite unlike those in federal court.
July 12, 2004Jonathan E. MoskinThere has been a great deal of debate recently in the English courts and legal press about two key issues relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). First, whether the court has the power to order unwilling parties to undertake ADR. Second, whether a successful party should be penalized in costs if it has refused ADR.
July 09, 2004Mark Lewis and Victoria FordHighlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
July 09, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
July 09, 2004Susan H. Morton and David W. OppenheimUniformity and predictability are often lacking from judicial treatment of cases involving vicarious liability claims against franchisors, yet uniformity and predictability are the hallmarks of a successful franchise system, and the engines that have driven franchising to occupy such a prominent position in the domestic and worldwide economy.
July 09, 2004Arthur L. PressmanMany technically intensive companies utilize patent liaisons to augment their intellectual property (IP) work. Patent liaisons work with patent attorneys and inventors and can have a wide variety of job responsibilities, thereby helping to provide additional trained "legal" resources to a business in a very economical manner.
July 06, 2004H. Jackson KnightIs it the chicken or the egg? Your client InventCo thinks it has several great new products, but it needs money to bring the products to the U.S. marketplace. Tooling costs money, as does producing sufficient inventory, and don't even mention what needs to be put aside to pay the patent attorney ' all for products that might flop in the market. "You've got to spend money to make money," InventCo's president says. "Too bad I can't offer them for sale now and see if any of them actually sell before I start the patenting process, but I remember what you told me about 1-year on-sale bars and what happed to that Pfaff guy," he continues. "Hold on a minute," you tell him, "there's a way around Pfaff."
July 06, 2004Matthew W. Siegal and Daniel C. WiesnerThe term "nanotechnology" generally refers to the fabrication and manipulation of materials and devices on the scale of about 1-100 nanometers, and has become one of the key technology buzzwords for 2004. The passage of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Pub. L. No. 108-153, which authorized $3.7 billion in federal funding from 2005 through 2008 for the support of nanotechnology research and development, has fueled the fervor over nanotechnology. This substantial funding came as the scientific community and industries as diverse as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and petrochemicals were increasingly discovering that, when reduced to nanoscale size, ordinary bits of matter often manifest radically different physical properties. See Joseph Brean, The Next Big (Little) Thing, National Post (Feb. 6, 2004).
July 06, 2004Iona Niven KaiserIf you asked 100 patent attorneys walking down the street, "What is the PCT for?", the vast majority would answer that the PCT is used to file a U.S. patent application under the Paris Convention to reserve patent rights in many other countries. A minority of them might reply (particularly if they were on a street in New York or Washington), that the PCT is the way their foreign clients bring their own applications into the United States. But very few would answer, "to control the timing and location of my search and the timing and location of my examination for my U.S. patent application."
July 06, 2004John H. Hornickel