@Prof_Farley@Apple@nytimes@RMac18@WCL_PIJIP Thx for sharing @Prof_Farley! Did Apple seek to stop use too? If not, perhaps the leadoff that Apple wants to stop “trademarking” is misleading. I’m wondering why Appleton schools want to spend tax dollars for natl reg in the first place, did it know difference bt use and reg?
@marklemley @design_law IMO u need a tight Ethicon plainly dissimilar test (eg square vs triangle concept fallacy), w/ common sense but maybe even “I’ve never seen a futuristic truck before,” else it’s an inappropriate proxy for SJ invalidity. Tesla has great lawyers, just missed the lead off home run
@TrademarkBlog FWIW, this was a hockey game. Michigan v. Michigan State, I think. I was there. They were trying to have the largest attendance ever for a hockey game. Let’s just say they embellished about as much as a 44e ITU claim.
@design_law In Romag, 3 say the statute does not require willfulness, Sotomayor says equity requires knew/should know, and Gorsuch/majority 5 say the statute &/or ltd equity controls. 289 lacks express willful/equity. So if S.Ct. ruled substantively in Appsung, would Sam’s equity args win?
@design_law I think that’s where Kitsch is going with the new argument. Also, wouldn’t it be fun to hypothesize that the Kitsch stripes are protectable trade dress, and that per Columbia, SJ of nonfringement is warranted?
@design_law Interesting. The judge seemed to shut the door on limiting to “noise reducing,” but didn’t lock it (“particularly at this stage...”). Did you infer from the new argument that Kitsch may try to invalidate with non-analogous art? To me, that has more heft going forward.