FC: Paul Levy on Supreme Court's important new trademark decision

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 22:06:34 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: North Carolina cops may have lied, posed as FBI cybercrime agents"

    ---
    
    Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:16:50 -0400
    From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVYat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: Important new trademark decision
    
    The Supreme Court today rejected an expansive construction of the Lanham
    Act that had been adopted by the Ninth Circuit.  In Dastar Corp. v.
    Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., the Court overturned a decision that
    had held Dastar liable for issuing a series of videotapes that were
    based very heavily on a TV series that had fallen into the public
    domain.  20th C Fox, which had succeeded to the rights to the TV series,
    avoided the problem that copyright law gave it no rights, sued Dastar
    under the Lanham Act, claiming that its failure to acknowledge that it
    was plagiarizing large sections of Fox's series, it was misrepresenting
    the origins of the creative work as its own.  In a unanimous opinion by
    Justice Scalia, however, the Court adopted a narrow construction of  the
    statutory term "false designation of origin", saying that the Act only
    protects against misrepresentation of the source of the goods, not
    misrepresentation of the source of the intellectual content of the
    goods.
    
    The ruling does not bear directly on most of the cases in which
    trademark law is invoked as a basis for suppressing free speech on
    internet gripe sites, but this is the second case in as many years in
    which the Court has expressed antipathy toward expansive readings  of
    the trademark laws, while focusing on the social cost that such readings
    may create  (last Term was the V Secret case, about the level of showing
    required for a dilution claim).  For that reason, it is a welcome
    development.  (there is also a passing reference to Eldred, saying that
    if the Ninth Circuit were correct, that "would be akin to a finding that
    section 43(a) created a species of perpetual patent and copyright, which
    Congress may not do.  Cf. Eldred...."
    
    
    Paul Alan Levy
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
    1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20009
    (202) 588-1000
    http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 22:45:41 PDT