Comments on: Trademark Fair Use and the Great “Section/Subsection Debate” http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/10/trademark-fair-use-and-the-great-sectionsubsection-debate/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:24:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Info/Law » Trademark Dilution Revision Act Becomes Law http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/10/trademark-fair-use-and-the-great-sectionsubsection-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-867 Info/Law » Trademark Dilution Revision Act Becomes Law Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:03:59 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/10/trademark-fair-use-and-the-great-sect#comment-867 [...] First, as I blogged back in May, the new law alters language that could have been interpreted to extend common-sense codified fair use defenses to many trademark cases. The 1996 dilution statute listed such defenses (such as comparative advertising, news reporting, and noncommercial use) as applicable to actions brought under “this section,” which might be read to apply not just to dilution claims but to many other cases under Section 43 of the Lanham Act. The new law retains those fair use defenses (thank goodness) but limits them to cases under “this subsection” — that is, to dilution cases. This strikes me as a lost opportunity to rationalize trademark fair use doctrine across the board, a longstanding interest of mine. [...] [...] First, as I blogged back in May, the new law alters language that could have been interpreted to extend common-sense codified fair use defenses to many trademark cases. The 1996 dilution statute listed such defenses (such as comparative advertising, news reporting, and noncommercial use) as applicable to actions brought under “this section,” which might be read to apply not just to dilution claims but to many other cases under Section 43 of the Lanham Act. The new law retains those fair use defenses (thank goodness) but limits them to cases under “this subsection” — that is, to dilution cases. This strikes me as a lost opportunity to rationalize trademark fair use doctrine across the board, a longstanding interest of mine. [...]

]]> By: Michael Risch http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/10/trademark-fair-use-and-the-great-sectionsubsection-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Michael Risch Thu, 11 May 2006 06:55:22 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/10/trademark-fair-use-and-the-great-sect#comment-10 How many cases are there that interpret (c)(4) one way or another? Was there any legislative history? Given that the statute was originally in the form of an Act that had a specific section that was plugged in as 43(c), it seems difficult to imagine how the language could be considered to cover 43(a). How many cases are there that interpret (c)(4) one way or another? Was there any legislative history?

Given that the statute was originally in the form of an Act that had a specific section that was plugged in as 43(c), it seems difficult to imagine how the language could be considered to cover 43(a).

]]> By: John Armstrong http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/10/trademark-fair-use-and-the-great-sectionsubsection-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-9 John Armstrong Thu, 11 May 2006 04:13:37 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/10/trademark-fair-use-and-the-great-sect#comment-9 Should we start requiring writers and readers of legislation to take a basic computer programming course? This sounds an awful lot like a scoping ambiguity to me. Should we start requiring writers and readers of legislation to take a basic computer programming course? This sounds an awful lot like a scoping ambiguity to me.

]]>