Category: 2004


The Disruption of the U.S. Constitutional Symmetry of Intellectual Property to Gain Conformity with an International Property Framework: A Road to a Global Market or a Tripping Point to the Gradual Collapse of the U.S. Economy?

John C. Hughs In a spectrum of governments that range from totalitarian (dictator or communism) to tribal (without any central government), there is a unique form that provides a symmetrical balance between the government and the independent inventor; this symmetrical balance produces technological advancement. Once this symmetrical balance is discovered, it allows independent inventors to have secure and unchangeable protection from the federal government that facilitates the courage and mentality to take risks of time, effort and wealth. The willingness of free inventors to take a chance on the free market without government intervention but with inventor controlled government exclusionary...

Been Deep Linked? Apparent Authority Might Link You to Liability

Tan Pham Current trends in trademark law have not met the issue of deep linking with open arms. To date, there is a dearth of cases that touch on deep linking and trademark infringement. Cases such as Ticketmaster Corp. v. dismissed claims of deep linking as trademark infringement with little explanation, simply stating that deep linking itself is not a trademark violation absent “confusion of source.” Yet, there is no case to set the boundaries at the other end of when deep linking would be trademark infringement; it can be implied then that the traditional tests of likelihood of confusion would most...

The Best Offense Is a Good Defense: How the Washington [NFL team] Overcame Challenges to Their Registered Trademarks

Lynette Paczkowski Editors Note: This article contains a racial slur the IPTF does not support. Discussion of the slur is in a purely academic context. Please direct any comments or questions to In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decided Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., in which a group of Native Americans (the “Petitioners”) alleged that the term “Redskin(s)” was a pejorative, derogatory, degrading, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person; the marks owned by Pro-Football, Inc. (“Pro-Football”), were offensive, disparaging and scandalous; Pro-Football’s use of the marks offended the petitioners and other...