Please watch the webinar:
“TRADEMARK DILUTION,” available at ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKwXsJgwONY The film is approximately 30 minutes in length.
And answering the following questions:
- Does the owner of a famous trademark have to prove economic harm of its mark prior to filing a dilution cause of action? What section of the Lanham Act specifically addresses this question?
- What kind of evidence does the modern trademark owner normally submit to the court in order to prove that its mark has achieved fame?
- How specifically did the 2006 Trademark Dilution Revision Act change the Lanham Act with respect to a dilution cause of action?
- Do you agree with the 2011 Starbucks court’s decision on remand that there was only a “loose connection” between the defendant’s mark CHARBUCKS and the plaintiff’s mark STARBUCKS, despite evidence of the defendant’s bad intent? Why or why not?
- Do you think the plaintiff’s design mark used on its jeans in Levi Strauss v. Abercrombie Fitch is distinctive pursuant to Section 45 of the Lanham Act? Why or why not?
- Do you think that the defendant in Harris Research, Inc. v. Lydon has a valid defense that its CHEM WHO? mark is a parody? Why or why not?