Undressing Abercrombie: defining when trade dress is inherently distinctive
Article Abstract:
The lingual test in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. inappropriately set the standard for determining and regulating trade dress since trade dress can include other attributes such as appearance, fragrances and sales techniques. The extension of Abercrombie beyond communicative lingual issues invalidates the test since the fundamental nature of trade dress encompasses numerous categories. Lingual symbol analogies do not recognize the interrelationships of trade dress concepts.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
35 U.S.C. section 287(c) - the physician immunity statute
Article Abstract:
The enactment of the physician immunity amendment to the Patent Code's section 287(c) sets a dangerous precedent for special interest group immunity. The medical community's reasons for encouraging the legislation reflect genuine concerns, but could be addressed by strict application of current law and increased patent administration access to information. The political nature of the legislative process attests to the inadvisability of such amendments to the Patent Code.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Hidden opportunities and dangers in International Trade Commission Section 337 proceedings. Remarks before the Intellectual Property section of the A.B.A
- Abstracts: Ethics; existing statutes may not stop health plans from discriminating through selective marketing. part 2 Outcomes assessment; defining 'medically necessary' and clarifying dispute procedures are key to the plan's success
- Abstracts: Further comments on PCT/USA national phase applications and section 102(e) dates. Traversing the section 112, paragraph six field of land mines: does In re Donaldson adequately defuse the problems?