Intro IP - 2008 - Review Q and A

Course Homepage | rss feed NOTE: I am not posting every single student question. Instead, I am only posting student questions that I believe the class, as a whole, will benefit from hearing. Some questions are too basic to deserve attention. Other questions are too advanced and nuanced. So don't take it personally if your question doesn't appear here. (Do take it personally if I don't respond to one of your questions. I might have forgotten to get to it, so if you don't hear from me in a day or two, please ask again.)

Sun, 07 Dec 2008

That's All. Good Luck!
The time to ask questions has now passed. There won't be any other entries posted to this website. If anything important is left to say, I will send it to you via e-mail.

Good Luck!

posted at: 13:40 | path: | permanent link to this entry

Dilution and "Actual Harm"
Q: I see on your grading rubric for Spring 2006 you gave a point for mentioning "actual harm" under trademark dilution. After addressing how the uses are blurring or tarnishing, where does the actual harm fit in? I don't have it in my notes on trademark dilution. Is this a prong we need to explore in any trademark dilution case?

A: Ignore actual harm. It is no longer good law. This has to do with the result of the Victoria Secrets case, and it was overturned by amendment by the TDRA (the law excerpted in your casebook) in 2006.

posted at: 08:16 | path: | permanent link to this entry