My new article, Dividing Trademark Use, is now in print at the Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts. I have been presenting the paper at various colloquia this spring, including the Chicago IP Colloquium, the Temple IP Colloquium, and the Penn State IP Colloquium. Thanks to the organizers (Cynthia Ho, Graeme Dinwoodie, and Sarah Fackrell for Chicago, Guy Rub for Temple, and Daryl Lim for Penn State) for the opportunity to discuss my work with them, their colleagues, and their students.
On February 26th, I participated in a panel discussion at the Annual Brand Seminar of the University College London Institute of Brand & Innovation Law. The seminar, entitled “Beyond Transactions; Beyond Jurisdictions: Post-sale Confusion and Targeting,” brought together academics, judges, and lawyers to discuss recent developments in UK trademark law through comparative analysis of US and EU law.
My remarks focused on the historical development of the concept of post-sale confusion in US trademark law, and its contrast with trademark infringement doctrines in the EU, as background for exploration of post-Brexit developments in UK trademark law.
It was a real pleasure to engage in discussion with UK lawyers, academics, and judges (Lord Justice Richard Arnold and retired Lord Justice Robin Jacob were in attendance and posed challenging questions). Many thanks to Professor Ilanah Fhima for organizing and hosting, and to Professor Jasem Tarawneh for moderating.
On Saturday, October 19, I workshopped my forthcoming paper, Dividing Trademark Use, at the Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2024 at Harvard Law School. The paper, which analyzes the implications for trademark law of the Supreme Court’s two recent decisions in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC and Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., is forthcoming in the Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts.
I’m happy to announce that my most recent new paper, “Dividing Trademark Use,” will be published in the Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts. The full paper is now available in draft on SSRN. Here’s the abstract:
The trademark law of the United States places special emphasis on whether and how a trademark is used in commerce. But over the long history of the Lanham Act—including some less-than-careful drafting by Congress and some aggressive acts of interpretation by the federal courts—the concept of “use” has become complicated and in many ways confused. Two recent Supreme Court cases—Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC and Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.—reflect and in some ways exacerbate that confusion. But the opinions in these cases also expose an interesting property of “use” in trademark law that has not been deeply examined in the caselaw or the academic literature. That property is that the use of a trademark can be divided among multiple agents with respect to a single product or service. The potential for divided use raises issues of secondary responsibility that trademark law has never comprehensively addressed. This Article catalogues the various notions of “use” in trademark law, shows how Jack Daniel’s and Abitron destabilize these notions, and applies principles of secondary responsibility to attempt to reconcile those cases with other contentious areas of trademark doctrine under the framework of divided use.
Comments welcome.
On August 9, 2024, I presented my work-in-progress, “A Heap of IP: Vagueness in the Delineation of Intellectual Property Rights,” at the 2024 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Berkeley Law School. The project applies the philosophical literature on vagueness to the problem of uncertainty in the scope of intellectual property rights. The slide deck from the presentation is posted below.
I’ve just posted to SSRN a preprint of my forthcoming article reporting the first empirical analysis of the Trademark Modernization Act’s new ex parte reexamination and expungement proceedings. The paper is accompanied by a new open-access, original dataset on all TMA dockets to date. Here’s the abstract:
The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (“TMA”) created two new forms of administrative proceeding designed to clear spurious trademarks from the federal register. Congress’s hope for these new proceedings was that they would “respond to concerns that registrations persist on the trademark register despite a registrant not having made proper use of the mark covered by the registration” by “allow[ing] for more efficient, and less costly and time consuming” means of removing them. This article subjects that policy to empirical examination, disclosing and analyzing a newly constructed dataset covering the dockets of all TMA proceedings (and petitions for proceedings) to date.
The results are not encouraging. Petitions to institute TMA proceedings are seldom filed, proceedings on those petitions are only sometimes instituted, the number of proceedings initiated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) sua sponte is relatively small, and the time it takes to progress from institution of a proceeding to a cancellation order is substantial. In a system where random audits of the most recently renewed registrations suggest an overall non-use rate of between 10 and 50 percent, the machinery of third-party petitions (subject to a filing fee) and ex parte review (subject to the USPTO’s overall resource constraints) appear to be a particularly inefficient means of preventing clutter on the trademark register. Based on the analysis presented herein, TMA proceedings seem, at best, to be a fairly reliable and moderately expeditious administrative pathway for clearing previously identified spurious applications from the register, but they are not likely to be a useful tool for combatting at scale the type of bad-faith trademark applications and registrations that have become so common in our age of automated, algorithmic e-commerce.
The paper, which was an invited contribution to the 2024 University of Houston Law Center Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law National Conference in Santa Fe, is forthcoming in the Houston Law Review and available now in preprint form at SSRN. The dataset is available at Zenodo.
This weekend I presented an updated empirical analysis of Trademark Modernization Act expungement and reexamination proceedings at the Annual University of Houston Institute for Intellectual Property and Information Law National Conference in Santa Fe. Many thanks to Professor Greg Vetter for the invitation, and to my co-presenters and other participants for their feedback. The final version of my findings will be published this fall in the Houston Law Review. In the meantime, here is the slide deck from my presentation, with some of the highlights from the paper.
I am at the University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Law for the annual Trademark Scholars Roundtable. This conference is a true roundtable, not a paper conference, which I love. But because one of the topics involves the relationship between the US Patent and Trademark Office trademark registry and the brand-protection systems like private platforms like Amazon’s Brand Registry, I prepared a few slides of data on a recent policy intervention designed to try to reduce abusive registration practices. The data suggest that this intervention–the new expungement and reexamination procedures of the Trademark Modernization Act–is not being widely used. Indeed, given the scale of the registration system and the perceived scale of the problem, these new procedures seem to be the equivalent of fighting a forest fire with a water pistol. Slides available below:
Today I presented my work in progress, “A Heap of IP: Vagueness in the Delineation of Intellectual Property Rights,” at the Works-in-Progress in Intellectual Property (WIPIP) Conference at Santa Clara University School of Law. This project seeks to connect philosophical literature on vagueness with the intellectual property law literature on claiming. Slides below; comments welcome.
This past weekend at the 20th Annual Works in Progress in Intellectual Property Colloquium (WIPIP 2023) at Suffolk University in Boston, I presented yet another chunk of my long-running book project, Valuing Progress: A Pluralist Account of Knowledge Governance. This piece, Knowledge as a Resource, examines those characteristics of knowledge–particularly nonrivalrousness–that distinguish knowledge from other goods that are subject to evaluation under the criteria of distributive justice. Because knowledge can be shared without depriving the sharer of anything, norms of distributive justice that have developed in the context of rivalrous goods–norms such as reciprocity–generate paradoxes when we try to apply them to knowledge. This requires us to choose among competing and contestable values underlying and justifying those norms. With respect to reciprocity, for example, it requires us to decide whether reciprocity is grounded in the value of compensation for burdens borne or in the value of gratitude for benefits received. While the distinction between these two justifications can often be ignored for rivalrous goods–particularly where institutions like property rights and markets limit exchange to goods over which parties agree as to their value–it cannot be ignored for knowledge: we must choose one at the expense of the other. The inevitability of such choices among competing values is the overarching theme of the book.
Slides for Knowledge as a Resource can be found here:
