Intellectual Property

This lesson provides an introduction to one of the Copyright Act's section 106 exclusive rights, the distribution right.

This lesson gives an overview of the basics of the European Union's trademark system. The emphasis is on issues of registration and infringement. It often uses a comparative approach, with the U.S. system as a foil. It takes users through both the national systems (via the Trademark Harmonization Directive) and the Community Trademark system. Familiarity with U.S. trademark law is assumed.

This lesson explores the application of the fair use doctrine, a defense to copyright infringement, in the special context of parody, based on the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994). The lesson builds on the foundation established in CALI Lesson CPY08, Fundamentals of Fair Use, using a series of hypotheticals and a final essay.

This lesson explores section 2 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052, which prohibits certain types of trademarks from being registered on the Principal Register of the PTO, regardless of whether those marks are protectible under state law or under section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

This lesson discusses the requirement that a work be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" as a condition to obtaining copyright protection. Although it assumes a basic familiarity with copyright law and terminology, it is designed to stand alone. It can, therefore, be used either as an introduction to the fixation requirement or as a review of those concepts after a class discussion.

This lesson explores how trademark law deals with two specific categories of marks: foreign (non-English) words and people's names. It addresses their ability to function as marks as well as how they should be assessed when determining infringement. The lesson assumes a working familiarity with the "distinctiveness" requirement, the fair use doctrine, and the likelihood of confusion test for infringement.

This lesson offers an introduction to the doctrine of functionality, which operates as a defense prohibiting anyone from claiming an exclusive right in functional shapes, elements, or aspects of a product or product packaging. The protectability or registrability of a trademark depends on a factual determination of a design's functionality. The functionality doctrine attempts to weigh the public and private interest in copying design features against a trademark owner's inherently anticompetitive objective to avoid consumer confusion.

Because copyright creates ownership rights in original expression, the private property interests of copyright owners sometimes come into conflict with the public's interest in disseminating knowledge, expressing ideas, or simply enjoying, sharing, and building upon the protected expression. This lesson introduces the basic concept of fair use in copyright law, and offers numerous examples to test the student's ability to apply the balancing test of 17 U.S.C. § 107.

This program takes the student through the basics of a particular area of trademark law — the geographic scope of trademark protection. It includes the general common law principles as enunciated in early Supreme Court cases (Hanover, Rectanus) as well as zone of natural expansion. The program also contains complete coverage of Lanham Act principles including constructive notice, constructive use, section 33 and the limited area defense, concurrent use, and the need for confusion (Dawn Donut).

This lesson teaches about the concept of incontestability: what it is, and what benefits it confers on trademark owners. This lesson can be used either for teaching the subject or for review.

This lesson concerns the initial ownership of trademarks. It does not address the assignment or licensing of trademarks, nor the transfer of trademark registrations. This lesson is intended as a review of material covered in the trademark law course.

This lesson introduces you to the rules governing the award of injunctive relief in actions for trademark infringement. In trademark infringement cases, the harm or loss suffered by a plaintiff is often difficult to prove because of the lack of evidence of a causal connection between the harm and the defendant's wrongful conduct. To account for this evidentiary shortfall, the judicial preference in awarding relief in trademark infringement cases is injunctive relief. Despite this judicial preference, monetary remedies remain available for trademark infringement.