Download Trademark Paper Outline

Trademark Paper Outline
I.
Paper Introduction and Overview
II.
Music Industry – The Distribution of Profits – goal: to introduce and establish
the value of goods/services that I’m referring to
a. Albums
i. Recording Label
ii. Musicians
iii. Promoters
b. Concerts
i. Recording Label
ii. Musicians
iii. Promoters
c. Merchandise
i. Recording Labels
ii. Musicians
iii. Promoters
III.
Bootlegging Industry – A Serious Problem – goal: present some data to show
the seriousness of the problem and the amount of money the protected parties
of Section II are losing.
a. Practices
i. Following Concerts
ii. Web sales
b. Prices
c. Figures and percentages of revenue
IV.
Protection Offered to Trademark Holders and Relief Sought
a. Enforcement
i. Injunctions
1. TRO’s and the “worldwide” injunction
a. Cases examining the effect of such remedy
b. Statutes
c. Self-Help – the current trend of taking matters in their own hands by
hiring security and seizing the merchandise
V.
Theories of Protection
a. Who Benefits?
i. Musicians
ii. Recording Labels
iii. Promoters
iv. Bootleggers
1. Unjust Enrichment
v. Consumers
1. Price wars – buying merchandise for less
VI.
Merchandising Argument
a. Dogan & Lemley Article
i. Increased Competition
ii. Consumer Benefit
iii. Free Market System – allowing customers to choose between
competing products
VII.
Counterargument – Unjust Enrichment
a. Unjust Enrichment Argument
i. Concepts underlying the need to offer trademark protection in the
first place to prevent freeloading and unjust enrichment that is
demonstrated by the bootlegging industry
b. Utilitarian Arguments
c. Fairness
i. Allowing bootleggers to profit unjustly based on the efforts and
work of others
VIII.
Conclusion and Summary
Proposed Bibliography
Cases:
Brockum Co., Div. of Krimson Corp. v Various John Does, 685 F Supp 476 (ED Pa
1988).
Joel v Various John Does, 499 F. Supp. 791 (ED Wis. 1980).
Pepe (U.K.) Ltd. v. Ocean View Factory Outlet Corp. 770 F. Supp. 754 (PR 1991).
Plant v. Doe, 19 F.Supp.2d 1316 (S.D.Fla.,1998).
SKS Merch, LLC v. Barry, 233 F.Supp.2d 841 (E.D.Ky. 2002).
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Does # 1-2, 876 F. Supp. 407 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
Winterland Concessions Co. v. MacIntosh, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1992 WL 170897
(E.D.Pa.,1992).
Winterland Concessions Co. v. Sileo, 528 F. Supp. 1201 (N.D. Ill. 1981), modified, 735
F.2d 257 (7th Cir. 1984).
Law Reviews and Journals:
Ex Parte Seizure Orders: Don't Kill the Goose that Laid this Golden Egg, 23 Colum.VLA J.L. & Arts 181.
MAY THE BEST MERCHANDISE WIN: THE LAW OF NON-TRADEMARK USES
OF SPORTS LOGOS, 14 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 283
Two Wrongs Making a Right: Using the Third and Ninth Circuits for a Uniform Standard
of Fame in Federal Dilution Law, 25 Seattle U. L. Rev. 867, 869 (2002);
ORIGIN OF GOODS: DELVING INTO DASTAR CORP. V. TWENTIETH CENTURY
FOX FILM CORP., 19 St. John's J.L. Comm. 421
THE MERCHANDISING RIGHT: FRAGILE THEORY OR FAIT ACCOMPLI?, 54
Emory L.J. 461
TRADEMARK PROTECTION UNDER LANHAM ACT OF NAME OF MUSICAL
GROUP, 115 A.L.R. Fed. 171, American Law Reports ALR Federal - § 6. Unauthorized
use of performer's name in commercial marketing scheme
NATIONAL, MULTI-DISTRICT PRELIMINARY TOUR INJUNCTIONS: WHY THE
HESITATION; 40 IDEA 195
Entertainment Law & Finance, November, 1995; Setting Sales - ARTIST/VENUE
MERCHANDISING AGREEMENTS by Andrew Darrow - 11 No. 8 ENTLFIN 1
Statutes:
15 U.S.C.A. 1125 – False Designations of Origin, false descriptions, and dilution
forbidden