Abstract

In this essay, Professor Austin urges courts to be more critical of the role played by the ordinarily prudent in trademark law. Trademark infringement law's story, which typically justifies trademark rights in terms of protecting consumers from the harms of likely confusion and dilution, does not adequately capture the need for countervailing principles and policies to contribute to the shape of trademark doctrine. The essay argues that recognizing the incapacity of the likelihood of confusion and dilution analyzes to capture the empirical reality of the consumer experience should lead to a greater preparedness to weigh countervailing policies and principles more heavily in the scale. Trademark doctrine provides a useful context in which to explore these ideas. The Supreme Court's approach to fair use in KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impressions I, Inc. risks valorizing consumer confusion in a context in which it should be downplayed. Moreover, the Court's holding risks constraining the analytical space available in trademark law for expression and development of policy concerns other than those that underlie trademark's straightforward story.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.