Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Index Volumes 1-7 1999-2005 ii TULANE JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VOLU...
Author: Bryan Tyler
0 downloads 1 Views 113KB Size
Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

Index Volumes 1-7 1999-2005

ii

TULANE JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VOLUMES 1-7

1999-2005

CONTENTS CONTRIBUTIONS—AUTHORS.......................................................v CONTRIBUTIONS—TITLES ...........................................................ix INDEX DIGEST .............................................................................. xiii TABLE OF CASES DISCUSSED...................................................xvii

iii

iv

2005]

INDEX

v

CONTRIBUTIONS—AUTHORS AFGHANI, KEVIN, Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names: A

Nonexpansive Expansion of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protections Act? (Note)............................................................................................. ALBRITTON, MELVIN, Swatting Spiders: An Analysis of Spider Activity on the Internet........................................................................................................................ BANCROFT, ROYCE E., The First Application of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: Sporty’s Farm, L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s

5:141-52 3:137-54

Market, Inc. (Note).................................................................................................... 3:175-86 BANGLE, PHILIP, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. (Note).......................................................................................................................... 2(4):1-9 BARTOLONE, MICHAEL, Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: The Federal Circuit Further Clarifies (or Perhaps Further Confuses) the Application of Prosecution History Estoppel (Note) ............... ...6:273-82 BAUCHNER, JOSHUA S., Globalization and Democratization: The Reclaiming of Copyright ................................................................................................................... 4:93-116 BIRNBAUM, MARC J., Low-Power FM: The Federal Communications

Commission’s Conflicting Roles of Policing the Spectrum and Ensuring Community Access to the Airwaves (Comment)................................................... CIMINO, CYNTHIA M., Fair Use in the Digital Age: Are We Playing Fair? (Comment) ................................................................................................................. CORREA, CARLOS M., Public Health and Patent Legislation in Developing Countries .................................................................................................................... DEAN, SUSAN W., Government Surveillance of the Internet Communications:

4:143-60 4:203-22 3:1-54

Pen Register and Trap and Trace Law Under the Patriotic Act (Comment) ................................................................................................................. DENARO, JAMES, Choice of Law Problems Posed by the Internet and by Satellite Broadcasting................................................................................................ DONAHOE, ROBERT V., Beyond.Com: What Risk Does the Explosive Growth

of Top Level Domains Pose to Your Trademark: Can You Get Any Relief?......................................................................................................................... ERIKSEN, CHRISTIAN R., Cable Broadband: Did the Ninth Circuit Beat the FCC to the Punch in Last Mile Regulation? (Note) ........................................ FARID, NADINE, Not in My Library: Eldred v. Ashcroft and the Demise of the Public Domain ........................................................................................................... FARNESE, PATRICIA L., Patently Unreasonable: Reconsidering the Responsibility of Patentees in Today’s Inventive Climate ............................. GALOFARO, RICHARD, Is the Tasini Decision in Need of a “Revision”?: New York Times Co. v. Tasini (Note) ............................................................................. GIVELBER, DANIEL, Pure Smoke: Products Liability, Innovation, and the Search for the Safe Cigarette ........................................................................... GRUBER, ALAN, Interpretation of “Revision” Under the Copyright Act Spells Trouble for Publishers: Greenberg v. National Geographic Society (Note).......................................................................................................................... HACKING, JOHN F., Trademark Dilution: Setting the Dilution Standard Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (Comment) ................................................... HANAMAN, DANA L., The Domain Name System and Trademark Law,

5:97-114 1(3):1-20 4:59-92 6:283-94 5:1-30 6:1-32 4:233-44 7:1-49 4:223-32 5:115-30

Globally Speaking: Arbitration for Increasing Internet Competition (Comment) .................................................................................................................

2(2):1-34

vi

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

[Vol. 7

HAROLDSON, PETER D., Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.: Shedding

Some Light on Recovery When a Design Patent and Utility Patent Are Infringed by a Single Act (Note).............................................................................. 5:153-62 HUTCHINSON, GEORGE W., Can the Federal Courts Save Rock Music?: Why a Default Joint Authorship Rule Should Be Adopted to Protect CoAuthors Under United States Copyright Law ......................................................... 5:77-96 IRIZARRY, ARMANDO, Harmonizing Prosecution History Estoppel and the 5:31-60 Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Infringement Actions ....................................... JACKSON, TRACI S., How Far Is Too Far? The Extension of the Right of Publicity to a Form of Intellectual Property Comparable to Trademark/Copyright (Comment) ............................................................................... 6:181-98 JENKINS, STEPHEN ROY, Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Enlarging the Patent Exclusionary Right Through Hatch-Waxman Settlement Agreements Is Not Per Se Anticompetitive? (Note) ..................... 6:295-306 JONES, WAYNE ALLEN, Intel v. Intergraph, “I May Throw My Weight Around, But I’m No Monopolist”: The Federal Circuit Rejects Intergraph Corp.’s Arguments that Intel Has Illegally Leveraged Its Market Power to Gain Access to Patent Licenses (Note) ............................................................... 2(3):1-17 KATYAL, NAVIN, The Unauthorized Dissemination of Celebrity Images on the Internet . . . in the Flesh ............................................................................................. 2(1):1-27 KEYHANI, DARIUSH, U.S. Patent Law and Extraterritorial Reach .............................. 7:51-69 KOTZUN, SHANDRA J., The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Anticircumvention Ban Gives More Rights to Copyright Owners (Comment) ................................................................................................................. KUNDAWALA, ISHAQ, Rodrigue v. Rodrigue: The Fifth Circuit Aligns with Worth—Accepting Copyright as Community Property (Note) ............................ LACEY, KATHLEEN A., GEORGE CRUTHFIELD, BARBARA & GEORGE, RAJAN,

International Telecommunications Mergers: U.S. National Security Threats Inherent in Foreign Government Ownership of Controlling Interests....................................................................................................................... LACHMAN, ANDREW, Providing a Secure Environment for Global Electronic Commerce: OECD Setting the Standards .............................................................. LEE, ERIC, Titan Sports, Inc. v. Hellwig: Wrestling with the Distinction Between Character and Performer (Note)............................................................... LUNNEY, GLYNN, Protecting Digital Works: Copyright or Contract? ............................. MACMILLAN, FIONA & BLACKNEY, MICHAEL, Genetically Modified Organisms and the World Trade Organizations......................................................................... MADAY, JEFF J., In re Bigio: Brushing Your Hair with a Toothbrush? The Interplay Between the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Rule and the Analogous Art Doctrine (Note) ................................................................. MARAVILLA, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, The Feasibility of a Law to Regulate Pornographic, Unsolicited, Commercial E-Mail .................................................... MOORCROFT, KARA, Scofflaw Science: Avoiding the Anticommons Through Ignorance ........................................................................................... MOTA, SUE ANN, Protecting Minors from Sexually Explicit Materials on the Net: COPA Likely Violates the First Amendment According to the Supreme Court.................................................................................................. MULLENBACH, ERIKA, The Influence of Disease on the Evolution of U.S. Patent Law and Policy Towards Foreign Patent Laws in the Late Twentieth to Early Twenty-First Century (Comment).................................... NORTMAN, GREGORY SCOTT, Indirect Liability of ISPs for Peer-to-Peer Copyright Infringement After the Verizon Decision (Comment)...................

3:117-36 3:165-74

4:29-58 1(2):1-20 3:155-64 1(1):1-30 3:93-116 7:313-25 4:117-42 7:71-93 7:95-111 7:227-48 7:249-66

2005]

INDEX

vii

ORIOLA, TAIWO A., Regulating Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail in

the United States and the European Union: Challenges and Prospects ......... PITTS, PAUL, Eli Lilly v. Barr: Double Patenting Analysis Can Be Anything But Obvious (Note) ................................................................................................... PONTE, LUCILLE M., Throwing Bad Money After Bad: Can Online Dispute

7:113-66 4:253-62

Resolution (ODR) Really Deliver the Goods for the Unhappy Internet 3:55-92 Shopper? ..................................................................................................................... REYNOLDS, JR., STUART M., The Relationship of Antitrust Laws to Regulated 4:1-28 Industries and Intellectual Property in the New Marketplace ............................... ROWE, ELIZABETH A., When Trade Secrets Become Shackles: Fairness and the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine .................................................................. 7:167-226 RUSSELL, DANIEL J., Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.: Invalidating the Copyright of Model Codes upon Their Enactment into Law (Note) ......................................................................................................... SAFRO, BELLA I. & KEATY, THOMAS S., What’s in a Name? Protection of Well-Known Trademarks Under International and National Law .................. SHULTZ , BROOKE, Sound Recordings: “Get a License or Do Not Sample” (Note)................................................................................................................ SIDDIQUI, IMTIAZ, Dial One of the Mid-South, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.: The Fifth Circuit Rejects Incorporation of Actual Malice into the Lanham Act (Note)............................................................. SOLOWEY, RIKKI, A Question of Equivalence: Expanding the Definition of

Child Pornography to Encompass “Virtual” Computer-Generated Images (Comment).................................................................................................... SON, SEUNGWOO, Can Black Dot (Shrinkwrap) Licenses Override Federal Reverse Engineering Rights?: The Relationship Between Copyright, Contract, and Antitrust Laws ........................................................................... STECKLEY , CRAIG, MGM v. Grokster : A Disincentive for Technological Responsibility (Note) ....................................................................................... STEVENS , ALICE, Commercial Disparagement Under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act (Comment) ............................................................................ STILLWELL, WALTER, Carafano v. Metrosplash.com: An Expansion of Tort Immunity for Web Service Providers Under 47 U.S.C. § 230, Even When They Take a Greater Editorial Role in Publishing Material from Third Parties (Note)................................................................................. THRASH, J. JARROD, Victoria’s Secret Is Not Safe with the Supreme Court: The Court Makes Its Foray into the Make-Believe World of the FTDA (Comment)......................................................................................................... TIMKOVICH, ELIZABETH TROUP, The New Significance of the Four Fair Use Factors as Applied to Parody: Interpreting the Court’s Analysis in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc........................................................................ VERCOSKI, MICHELE M., Ty v. Perryman: The Seventh Circuit Disarms

5:131-40 6:33-62 7:327-36 4:245-52 4:161-202 6:63-146 7:299-312 7:267-80

6:307-18 6:199-222 5:61-76

Trademark Owner of Power to Enjoin Under Dilution Theory for Threat of “Beanies” Mark Becoming Generic (Note)........................................................ 5:163-72 VICKERS , ADAM V., Willful Infringement: Enhanced Privilege and Obscure Remedies (Note)............................................................................................... 7:337-45 VINEYARD, PHILIP, “No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition”—Twice: Subduing the Moral Rights Monster (Comment)................................................... 6:223-46 WEPNER, ROY H. & ELLIS, RICHARD W., The Federal Circuit’s Presumptively Erroneous Presumption of Irreparable Harm .......................... 6:147-70 WHITE, JEFF, From Balance to Property: The Dangers of Copywrongs (Comment)......................................................................................................................

6:247-72

viii

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

[Vol. 7

YANNONE, JENNIFER, The Future of Unauthorized Pop-Up Advertisements

Remains Uncertain as Courts Reach Conflicting Outcomes (Comment) ....................................................................................................... ZINSER, ALEXANDER, European Data Protection Directive: The

Determination of the Adequacy Requirement in International Data Transfers ...........................................................................................................

7:281-97 6:171-80

INDEX

2005]

ix

CONTRIBUTIONS—TITLES A QUESTION OF EQUIVALENCE: EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO ENCOMPASS “VIRTUAL” COMPUTER-GENERATED IMAGES Rikki Solowey (Comment)....................................................................................... 4:161-202 BEYOND.COM: WHAT RISK DOES THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF TOP LEVEL DOMAINS POSE TO YOUR TRADEMARK: CAN YOU GET ANY RELIEF? Robert V. Donahoe.................................................................................................... 4:59-92 CABLE BROADBAND: DID THE NINTH CIRCUIT BEAT THE FCC TO THE PUNCH IN LAST MILE REGULATION? Christian R. Eriksen (Note).............................................................................. 6:283-94 CAN BLACK DOT (SHRINKWRAP) LICENSES OVERRIDE FEDERAL REVERSE ENGINEERING RIGHTS?: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COPYRIGHT, CONTRACT, AND ANTITRUST LAWS Seungwoo Son .................................................................................................. 6:63-146 CAN THE FEDERAL COURTS SAVE ROCK MUSIC?: WHY A DEFAULT JOINT AUTHORSHIP RULE SHOULD BE ADOPTED TO PROTECT CO-AUTHORS UNDER UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT LAW George W. Hutchinson ............................................................................................. 5:77-96 CARAFANO V. METROSPLASH.COM: AN EXPANSION OF TORT IMMUNITY FOR WEB SERVICE PROVIDERS UNDER 47 U.S.C. § 230, EVEN WHEN THEY TAKE A GREATER EDITORIAL ROLE IN PUBLISHING MATERIAL FROM THIRD PARTIES Walter Stillwell (Note)..................................................................................... 6:307-18 CATALINA LIGHTING, INC. V. LAMPS PLUS, INC.: SHEDDING SOME LIGHT ON RECOVERY WHEN A DESIGN PATENT AND UTILITY PATENT ARE INFRINGED BY A SINGLE ACT Peter D. Haroldson (Note) ........................................................................................ 5:153-62 CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEMS POSED BY THE INTERNET AND BY SATELLITE BROADCASTING James Denaro ............................................................................................................. 1(3):1-20 COMMERCIAL DISPARAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 43(A)(1)(B) OF THE LANHAM ACT Alice Stevens (Comment) ................................................................................ 7:267-80

DIAL ONE OF THE MID-SOUTH, INC. V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.: THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REJECTS INCORPORATION OF ACTUAL MALICE INTO THE LANHAM ACT

Imtiaz Siddiqui (Note) .............................................................................................. ELI LILLY V. BARR: DOUBLE PATENTING ANALYSIS CAN BE ANYTHING BUT

4:245-52

OBVIOUS

Paul Pitts (Note)......................................................................................................... EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION DIRECTIVE: THE DETERMINATION OF THE ADEQUACY REQUIREMENT IN INTERNATIONAL DATA TRANSFERS Alexander Zinser .............................................................................................. FAIR USE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ARE WE PLAYING FAIR? Cynthia M. Cimino (Comment)............................................................................... FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO.: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FURTHER CLARIFIES (OR PERHAPS FURTHER CONFUSES) THE APPLICATION OF PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL Michael Bartolone (Note) ................................................................................

4:253-62 6:171-80 4:203-22

6:273-82

x

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

FROM BALANCE TO PROPERTY: THE DANGERS OF COPYWRONGS Jeff White (Comment) ..................................................................................... GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS AND THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATIONS Fiona Macmillan & Michael Blackney ................................................................... GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIZATION: THE RECLAIMING OF COPYRIGHT Joshua S. Bauchner ................................................................................................... GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE OF THE INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS: PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE LAW UNDER THE PATRIOTIC ACT Susan W. Dean (Comment)...................................................................................... HARMONIZING PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS Armando Irizarry ....................................................................................................... HARRODS LTD. V. SIXTY INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES : A NONEXPANSIVE EXPANSION OF THE ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTIONS ACT? Kevin Afghani (Note) ............................................................................................... HOW FAR IS TOO FAR? THE EXTENSION OF THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY TO A FORM OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMPARABLE TO TRADEMARK/COPYRIGHT Traci S. Jackson (Comment)............................................................................ IN RE BIGIO: BRUSHING YOUR HAIR WITH A TOOTHBRUSH? THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION RULE AND THE ANALOGOUS ART DOCTRINE Jeff J. Maday (Note)......................................................................................... INDIRECT LIABILITY OF ISPS FOR PEER-TO-PEER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AFTER THE VERIZON DECISION Gregory Scott Nortman (Comment)................................................................................ INTEL V. INTERGRAPH, “I MAY THROW MY WEIGHT AROUND, BUT I’M NO MONOPOLIST”: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REJECTS INTERGRAPH CORP.’S ARGUMENTS THAT INTEL HAS ILLEGALLY LEVERAGED ITS MARKET POWER TO GAIN ACCESS TO PATENT LICENSES Wayne Allen Jones (Note)........................................................................................ INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS MERGERS: U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS INHERENT IN FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF CONTROLLING INTERESTS Kathleen A. Lacey, George Cruthfield, Barbara & George Rajan ....................... INTERPRETATION OF “REVISION” UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT SPELLS TROUBLE FOR PUBLISHERS: GREENBERG V. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY Alan Gruber (Note) ................................................................................................... IS THE TASINI DECISION IN NEED OF A “REVISION”?: NEW YORK TIMES CO. V.

TASINI Richard Galofaro (Note) ...........................................................................................

[Vol. 7 6:247-72 3:93-116 4:93-116 5:97-114 5:31-60

5:141-52 6:181-98

7:313-25 7:249-66

2(3):1-17

4:29-58 4:223-32

4:233-44 LOW-POWER FM: THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION’S CONFLICTING ROLES OF POLICING THE SPECTRUM AND ENSURING COMMUNITY ACCESS TO THE AIRWAVES Marc J. Birnbaum (Comment) ................................................................................. 4:143-60 MGM V. GROKSTER : A DISINCENTIVE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESPONSIBILITY Craig Steckley (Note)....................................................................................... 7:299-312 “NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION”—TWICE: SUBDUING THE MORAL RIGHTS MONSTER Philip Vineyard (Comment)............................................................................. 6:223-46 NOT IN MY LIBRARY: ELDRED V. ASHCROFT AND THE DEMISE OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Nadine Farid............................................................................................................... 5:1-30

2005]

INDEX

PATENTLY UNREASONABLE: RECONSIDERING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PATENTEES IN TODAY’S INVENTIVE CLIMATE Patricia L. Farnese ............................................................................................ PROTECTING DIGITAL WORKS: COPYRIGHT OR CONTRACT? Glynn Lunney ............................................................................................................ PROTECTING MINORS FROM SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS ON THE NET: COPA LIKELY VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT Sue Ann Mota................................................................................................... PROVIDING A SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR GLOBAL ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: OECD SETTING THE STANDARDS Andrew Lachman ...................................................................................................... PUBLIC HEALTH AND PATENT LEGISLATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Carlos M. Correa ....................................................................................................... PURE SMOKE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY, INNOVATION, AND THE SEARCH FOR THE SAFE CIGARETTE Daniel Givelber ................................................................................................ REGULATING UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS Taiwo A. Oriola................................................................................................ RODRIGUE V. RODRIGUE : THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ALIGNS WITH WORTH— ACCEPTING COPYRIGHT AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY Ishaq Kundawala (Note) ........................................................................................... SCOFFLAW SCIENCE: AVOIDING THE ANTICOMMONS THROUGH IGNORANCE Kara Moorcroft ................................................................................................. SOUND RECORDINGS: “GET A LICENSE OR DO NOT SAMPLE” Brooke Shultz (Note) ....................................................................................... SWATTING SPIDERS: AN ANALYSIS OF SPIDER ACTIVITY ON THE INTERNET Melvin Albritton ........................................................................................................

THE BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. V. COREL CORP. Philip Bangle (Note).................................................................................................. THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT: ANTICIRCUMVENTION BAN GIVES MORE RIGHTS TO COPYRIGHT OWNERS Shandra J. Kotzun (Comment)................................................................................. THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AND TRADEMARK LAW, GLOBALLY SPEAKING: ARBITRATION FOR INCREASING INTERNET COMPETITION Dana L. Hanaman (Comment)................................................................................. THE FEASIBILITY OF A LAW TO REGULATE PORNOGRAPHIC, UNSOLICITED, COMMERCIAL E-MAIL Christopher Scott Maravilla...................................................................................... THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S PRESUMPTIVELY ERRONEOUS PRESUMPTION OF IRREPARABLE HARM Roy H. Wepner & Richard W. Ellis ................................................................ THE FIRST APPLICATION OF THE ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: SPORTY’S FARM, L.L.C. V. SPORTSMAN’S MARKET, INC. Royce E. Bancroft (Note) ......................................................................................... THE FUTURE OF UNAUTHORIZED POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS REMAINS UNCERTAIN AS COURTS REACH CONFLICTING OUTCOMES Jennifer Yannone (Comment).......................................................................... THE INFLUENCE OF DISEASE ON THE EVOLUTION OF U.S. PATENT LAW AND POLICY TOWARDS FOREIGN PATENT LAWS IN THE LATE TWENTIETH TO EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY Erika Mullenbach (Comment) .........................................................................

xi

6:1-32 1(1):1-30

7:95-111 1(2):1-20 3:1-54 7:1-49 7:113-66 3:165-74 7:71-93 7:327-36 3:137-54 2(4):1-9 3:117-36 2(2):1-34 4:117-42 6:147-70 3:175-86 7:281-97

7:227-48

xii

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

[Vol. 7

THE NEW SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOUR FAIR USE FACTORS AS APPLIED TO PARODY: INTERPRETING THE COURT’S ANALYSIS IN CAMPBELL V.

ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. Elizabeth Troup Timkovich......................................................................................

5:61-76 THE RELATIONSHIP OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO REGULATED INDUSTRIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW MARKETPLACE Stuart M. Reynolds, Jr............................................................................................... 4:1-28 THE UNAUTHORIZED DISSEMINATION OF CELEBRITY IMAGES ON THE INTERNET . . . IN THE FLESH Navin Katyal .............................................................................................................. 2(1):1-27 THROWING BAD MONEY AFTER BAD: CAN ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ODR) REALLY DELIVER THE GOODS FOR THE UNHAPPY INTERNET SHOPPER? Lucille M. Ponte ........................................................................................................ 3:55-92 TITAN SPORTS, INC. V. HELLWIG : WRESTLING WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CHARACTER AND PERFORMER Eric Lee (Note) .......................................................................................................... 3:155-64 TRADEMARK DILUTION: SETTING THE DILUTION STANDARD UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION ACT John F. Hacking (Comment) .................................................................................... 5:115-30 TY V. PERRYMAN : THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT DISARMS TRADEMARK OWNER OF POWER TO ENJOIN UNDER DILUTION THEORY FOR THREAT OF “BEANIES” MARK BECOMING GENERIC Michele M. Vercoski (Note) .................................................................................... 5:163-72 U.S. PATENT LAW AND EXTRATERRITORIAL REACH Dariush Keyhani............................................................................................... 7:51-69 VALLEY DRUG CO. V. GENEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.: ENLARGING THE PATENT EXCLUSIONARY RIGHT THROUGH HATCH-WAXMAN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IS NOT PER SE ANTICOMPETITIVE? Stephen Roy Jenkins (Note)............................................................................. 6:295-306 VEECK V. SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.: INVALIDATING THE COPYRIGHT OF MODEL CODES UPON THEIR ENACTMENT INTO LAW Daniel J. Russell (Note) ............................................................................................ 5:131-40 VICTORIA’S SECRET IS NOT SAFE WITH THE SUPREME COURT: THE COURT MAKES ITS FORAY INTO THE MAKE-BELIEVE WORLD OF THE FTDA J. Jarrod Thrash (Comment) ............................................................................ 6:199-222 WHAT’S IN A NAME? PROTECTION OF WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS UNDER INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAW Bella I. Safro & Thomas S. Keaty ................................................................... 6:33-62 WHEN TRADE SECRETS BECOME SHACKLES: FAIRNESS AND THE INEVITABLE DISCLOSURE DOCTRINE Elizabeth A. Rowe ........................................................................................... 7:167-226 WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT: ENHANCED PRIVILEGE AND OBSCURE REMEDIES Adam V. Vickers (Note) .................................................................................. 7:337-45

INDEX

2005]

xiii

INDEX DIGEST ANTITRUST LAW Claims........................................6:105-06 Power industry regulation............4:1-28 Sherman Act ..........2(3):1-17; 6:127-30, ....................................132-33, 137-39 Monopolistic conduct..........6:137-43 Monopolization........... 6:133, 142-43 Attempted................. 6:142-43 Network effects....... 6:67-68, 98, 137 Restraint Ancillary .................. 6:128-31 Naked....................... 6:128-30 Restraint standards Per se illegality ....... 6:128-30, ................................ 138-39 Rule of Reason ........ 6:128-29 Standards Liability ................... 6:128-29 CABLE MODEM SERVICES Generally...................................6:283-92 Classification Information services................. 6:286, 288, 290 Telecommunication services.............................6:285-91 Last Mile Regulation.... 6:285, 287, 292 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)..................................7:98-100 Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) ...........................7:106-10 Child Online Protection Act (COPA)..........................7:95-110 COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 Generally........................................ 6:287 Preemption ..................................... 6:287 COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Generally.......................6:308; 7:95-101 Information content provider...................6:309-12, 314-17 Interactive computer service .....................6:311-12, 315-16

Strict liability ......................... 6:308, 310 Tort immunity ....................... 6:308, 311 BIOTECHNOLOGY Genetically modified organisms and liability...............6:2-3 Genetically modified organisms and WTO........... 3:93-116 COPYRIGHT LAW Abstraction—filtration comparison............................. 6:76-77 Berne Convention .................... 6:227-28 Collective Works ..................... 4:223-44 Community property ............... 3:165-74 Contract law ...........1(1):1-30; 6:265-68 Copyright Act............................ 6:74-80, .......................88, 97, 112-17, 125-26, .................. 227, 229-30, 235, 240-41, ....................................... 248, 253, 266 CTEA (Copyright Term Extension Act)..........................5:1-30 DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).... 3:117-36; 6:65, 99, ...........................101-02, 104-05, 253, .........................................258-63, 265; ................................. 7:253-57, 260-64 Anticircumvention ...............6:65, 99, ............................... 102-03, 256-60 Fair use...........6:253, 257-61, 265-66 White Paper ......................... 6:254-56 Fair-Use Doctrine...........4:203-22; 6:67, ...........................78-81, 84, 88-89, 93, .......... 96, 104, 113, 117-18, 126, 130 Idea v. expression dichotomy .............................. 6:74-77 INDUCE Act............................ 7:262-63 Infringement ........................6:71, 78-79, .............................5, 88, 101, 104, 107 Contributory........... 7:251-56, 300-12 Vicarious................ 7:251-55, 300-12 Intellectual Property Clause...........................6:230-31, 234 ISPs............................................ 7:253-55 Joint authorship .......................... 5:77-96 Misuse Doctrine....................... 6:105-07 Model Codes ............................ 5:131-40

xiv

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

Moral rights/ droit moral ................6:224, 227, 229, ..........................................233-35, 242 Lanham Act.......................6:226, 235 NII Copyright Protection Act....................6:254, 256 Originality .................................. 2(4):1-9 Parody and Fair Use...................5:61-76 Protection .......... 6:65, 74-75, 80-81, 84, ............................... 98, 102, 105, 108, .................................116-17, 130, 143 Reverse engineering..................6:64-74, ...........................78, 82, 84-85, 88-89, ...............................91-92, 94, 97-105, ................................108, 110-11, 118, .................................138, 140, 143-44 Right of publicity....2(1):1-27, 3:155-64 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Protection Act (CTEA)..................... 6:248, 250, 252 Subpoena provision..................7:258-60 Sound recordings......................7:329-32 Sampling...............................7:327-37 Transformative use.....................6:93-94 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA)....................... 6:227-28, 235 FIRST AMENDMENT LAW Child pornography................ 4:161-202; ...............................................7:98-103 Commercial Speech .................7:263-71 Internet content regulation.............................7:95-110, ......................................124-25, 47-48 Mail regulation..........................7:148-49 Right to anonymous speech.....7:151-55 Unsolicited commercial email regulation...................4:117-42; ...............................................7:149-51 INTERNATIONAL DATA TRANSFER European Data Protection Directive ...............................6:171-79 Adequacy requirement ........6:174-79 Remedies........................................ 6:176 Safe harbor principles...............6:173-77 PATENT LAW Generally........................................ 6:167 Evolution of..........................7:229-32

[Vol. 7

Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) ....................6:295, 298, 303 Analogous art doctrine ............ 7:313-25 Attorney-Client Privilege ........ 7:337-45 Best mode requirement............ 4:253-62 Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Rule....................................... 7:313-25 Damages ......... 5:153-62; 6:154-57, 167 Reasonable royalty.............. 6:154-56 Doctrine of Equivalents........... 6:274-80 Doha Declaration ..................... 7:242-47 Enforcement ............................... 7:87-91 Enforcement damages ............. 7:337-45 Evolution of.............................. 7:229-32 Exclusion agreement .....................6:299 Exclusionary right.................... 6:300-01 Exporting .................................... 7:51-65 Hatch Waxman Act .............. 6:298, 303 Inferences.................................. 7:337-45 Infringement ............................... 7:75-85 Indirect ................................... 7:51-54 Willful ...................... 7:75-80, 337-45 Licensing..................................... 7:75-77 Negligence......................6:6-7, 9, 11-13, .................................. 19-20, 27, 30-31 Causation................................ 6:17-18 Damage or loss...........................6:6-8 Defenses.......................................6:20 Duty...............................6:8-10, 15-16 Foreseeability...............6:8, 14, 18-20 Proximate cause..................... 6:17-20 Remoteness..................................6:18 Restatement (Second) of Torts .......................6:6-8, 11-15 Standard of Care.................... 6:11-16 Hand Formula............ 6:13-14 Patent Act.....................................6:4-6, 9 Presumption of irreparable harm..................6:148-54, 157, 60-69 Preliminary injunction ....... 6:148-53, .....................................157-63, 166 Trademark law..................... 6:163-65 Copyright law..... 6:151, 163, 165-68 Prosecution history estoppel ... 6:275-77 Doctrine of Equivalents....... 5:31-60; .......................................... 6:275-80 Remedies .................................. 7:338-40 Settlement agreements............. 6:299-03 Sherman Act.......................... 6:297, 300 Per se rule............................. 6:296-99 Strict Liability.............................6:20, 22 Defenses.......................................6:27 Design defects ....................... 6:23-25

2005] Manufacturing defects.................6:23 Restatement (Third) of Torts...........................6:8, 20-26 Warnings ......................................6:26 TRIPs Agreement and Public health.............................3:1-54 PREEMPTION Generally...... 6:111-12, 115-19, 125-26 Extra-Element Test...................6:115-16 PRODUCTS LIABILITY Cigarette industry, generally......7:15-49 Impact of liability concerns on........................7:38-49 Marketing strategies ..............7:26-32 Safer cigarette development..7:32-37 Scientific research..................7:19-26 Reasonableness standard ..........7:13-15, .................................................... 23-26 Subsequent repair doctrine ............ 7:3-7 RIGHT OF PUBLICITY Copyright...................................6:193-94 Copyright Act.......................6:189-90 Defenses ......................................... 6:187 De Minimis use....................6:189-90 First Amendment...6:187-89, 193-94 First Sale Doctrine ............6:189, 195 Preemption ................................ 6:190 Duration.......................................... 6:184 Elements......................................... 6:185 Commercial use ........................ 6:186 Consent ...................................... 6:186 Identity use ................................ 6:185 Reparable injury........................ 6:186 Valid ownership........................ 6:185 False endorsement......................... 6:183 Scope .............................................. 6:184 Trademark.................................6:191-93 Violations ..................................6:185-86 Appropriation............................ 6:183 SUPREMACY CLAUSE Generally...................................6:117-19 TECHNOLOGY Choice of Law..........................1(3):1-20 Commerce Clause ....................7:134-40 Copyright protection ................4:93-116 FCC roles ..................................4:143-60

INDEX

xv Global e-commerce regulation ...........1(2):1-20; 7:141-46 International telecommunications mergers...................... 4:29-58 Internet jurisdictional issues.... 7:127-30 Internet spider activity ............. 3:137-54 Pop-up advertisements ............ 7:280-97 Spam Generally.............................. 7:115-23 Antispam measures............. 7:164-65 CAN-SPAM Act......................7:115, ................ 125-26, 131-34, 140-41, .......................146-47, 151, 155-58 Regulation in the European Union .......................................... 7:158-63 Regulation in the United States ................... 7:123-24 State regulation............7:126, 129-31 USA PATRIOT Act ................ 5:97-114

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 Generally................................... 6:286-90 Common Carrier Regulation......................... 6:285, 292 Internet open access requirement..................6:287, 291-92 TRADE SECRET LAW Economic Espionage Act..............7:201 Employer/employee relationship........................... 7:186-88 Inevitable disclosure doctrine................... 7:169-71, 182-86 Confusion with threatened misappropriation............. 7:181-82 Injunctive relief Generally.............................. 7:201-07 Preliminary injunction elements........................... 7:202-07 Preliminary injunction hearings..................................7:202 Temporary restraining order................................. 7:201-02 Restatement (First) of Torts .... 7:192-93 Restatement of Unfair Competition ....................... 7:198-201 Restrictive covenants............... 7:188-91 Confidentiality/ nondisclosure agreements ...................... 7:188-90

xvi

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

Noncompetition agreements.......................7:190-91 Uniform Trade Secrets Act......7:193-98 TRADEMARK LAW ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)..................... 3:175-86, 5:141-52; ...............................................7:294-96 Commercial Disparagement....7:267-80 Dilution........................................6:52-55 State statutes.............................. 6:216 Types of dilution Blurring ......... 6:205, 207, 213 Tarnishment .. 6:205, 213, 220 FTDA (Federal Trademark Dilution Act) ..... 5:115-30, 5:163-72; ................................... 6: 6:52-55, 199, ....................................202-08, 210-22 Actual dilution...................6:199-201, ...................... 204, 206-11, 213-21 Likelihood of dilution ..........................6:199-202, ...............................204-11, 213-17 Innocent infringer defense .......4:245-52 Lanham Act......................... 6:39, 52-53; ...............................................7:296-97 Law on Trademarks and Appellations of Origin.................6:60 Lithuanian trademark law................6:59 Madrid Protocol..........................6:39-40 Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002 (MPIA) ....................6:39 Online dispute resolution...........3:55-92 Paris Convention .......................6:35-40, ..............................................50-51, 57 Schechter article........................6:202-04 Top level domain names............4:59-92 Trademark law of the Russian Federation ................6:57-58 TRIPS Agreement ...............6:36, 49-52 Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy................2(2):1-34 Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (the UDRP Policy).................6:43-44 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the UDRP Rules) .......6:43 Well-known marks....................6:38-42, ........................................ 50-53, 55-60

[Vol. 7

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)........... 6:35-36, .........................................41-45, 48-49 Dispute resolution ................. 6:43-44 Joint recommendation concerning well-known marks ...........................6:35, 41-42 World Trade Organization (WTO)...................6:36 UNIFORM COMPUTER INFORMATION TRANSACTIONS ACT (UCITA) Generally............6:66, 107-12, 120, 126 Doctrine of Unconscionability ............... 6:120-21 Licenses Click wrap licenses .....................6:65 Shrink wrap licenses ............ 6:65-66, .......................107-08, 111, 121-26

INDEX

2005]

xvii

TABLE OF CASES DISCUSSED

(Italics Indicates Recent Development) 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2003)...................7:291-95 3-D Sys. Inc. v. Aarotech Labs. Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..............7:67-69 A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) ..............4:218-20 A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) ..............7:310-12 A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2000)...........4:218-20 A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001)........7:257-58, 301-06 Aalmuhammed v. Lee (9th Cir. 2000)........................5:88-89 Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Sci. v. Network Solutions, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1997)...........................4:64 ACLU v. Miller (N.D. Ga. 1997) ...................7:152-54 Addamax Corp. v. Open Software Found. (D. Mass. 1995).................4:8 Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Jeppesen & Co. (9th Cir. 1980)..............................6:25 Akro Corp. v. Luker (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................7:67 Alcatel U.S.A., Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc. (5th Cir. 1999) ...... 6:107 Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (2d Cir. 1951) ...........2(4):3 Allen v. Nat’l Video, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1985)........................ 3:158 Alva Studios, Inc. v. Winninger (S.D.N.Y. 1959)........................2(4):3 Am. Libraries Ass’n v. Pataki (S.D.N.Y 1997)....................7:136-38 Am. Metro. Enters. of N.Y., Inc. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. (2d Cir. 1968).......................6:166-67 Am. Visuals Corp. v. Holland (2d Cir. 1958)............................ 6:166 Amway Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co. (6th Cir. 2003)........................... 7:275 Aro Mfg Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1964) .......... 5:158 Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002)......7:100-107

Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004)..... 7:102-107 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) .................. 7:99-107 Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highland Skiing Corp. (1985) ........................................ 2(3):5 Associated Film Distrib. Corp. v. Thornburg (E.D. Pa. 1981).......6:119 AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland (9th Cir. 2000) ..................... 6:287-89 Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am. (Fed. Cir. 1990).................4:254 Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............6:85-88, 101 Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...........................5:48 Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber (C.D. Cal. 1998) ...........4:63 Banks v. Manchester (1888) .................. 5:132, 135-36, 139 Barilla Am., Inc. v. Wright (S.D. Iowa 2002).............. 7:177, 221 Bayer v. Housey Pharms. (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................... 7:61-62 Berkeley Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (1979)................. 2(3):6, 8 Bernstein v. United States Dep’t of State (D.D.C. 1996)............. 1(2):5 Bldg. Officials & Code Admin. v. Code Tech., Inc. (1st Cir. 1980)...................... 5:133-37 Blount v. Rizzi (1983) ...................4:137 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp. (1971)...............................4:137 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp. (1971)......................... 7:269-70 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989) ............6:119 Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. (1984) ..................4:248-49; 7:271-72 Bowers v. Baystate Techs., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............6:66, 124-25

Brand X Internet Servs. v. F.C.C. (9th Cir. 2003) ....... 6:284-86, 289-91 Braun Inv. v. Dynamics Corp. (Fed Cir. 1992) ..........................5:158

xviii

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

Breard v. City of Alexandria (1951)......................................... 4:128

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (6th Cir. 2004)......................7:327-36 Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Lockhart (S.D. Ind. 1998).................7:180, 222 Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993).........................................2(3):4 Brookfield Communications, Inc, v. West Coast Entm’t Corp. (2d Cir. 1999)............................ 3:178 Brown v. Kendall, 60 Mass. 292 (1850)............................................6:11 Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo BowlO-Mat, Inc. (1977)....................2(3):7 BTE v. Bonnecaze (E.D. La. 1999) ................5:79-80, 90 Bulter v. Michigan (1957) ............ 4:141 Burham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp. (2d Cir. 1980) .................2(4):4 Burrow-Giles Lithographic v. Sarony (1884).................................5:9 Byars v. Bluff City News Co. (6th Cir. 1980)...........................2(3):5 Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (1980)............................................4:15 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)................ 5:62, 64-75; 6:93-94 Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co. (1976)................................4:13-14, 17

Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2003)........6:307-08, 313-18 Cardoza v. True (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)......6:10-11 Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets (6th Cir. 1983) .............. 3:159

Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2002)......5:153-55, 158-62 CCC Info. Servs. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc. (2d Cir. 1994).............. 5:134-35, 137 Cent. Soya Co. v. Rose (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) .................6:25 Century 21 Real Estate Corp. of N. Ill v. R.M. Post, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 1988).......................... 4:247

[Vol. 7

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (1942) .......4:132, 186-88 Childress v. Taylor (2d Cir. 1991) ............ 5:83-88, 90-93 Clayton v. Akiba (1982)................4:258 Clogston v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons (W.D. Tex. 1996) ........................5:90 Cohen v. Herbal Concepts, Inc. (App. Div. 1984) .......................6:189 Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (9th Cir. 1988).................4:101 Comedy III Prods. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. (Cal. 2001).... 6:194-95 Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964) .................6:119 CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 1997)...................7:118, 150-51 Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (2d Cir. 1992) .................. 4:100; 6:76 D’Andrea v. Rafla-Demetrious (E.D.N.Y. 1997) ........................6:190 Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp. (1st Cir. 1994)............... 2(3):7; 6:125 Dawn v. Sterling Drug, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1970) ........................5:165 Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. (1972)............... 7:51-53, 57-58 Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co. (S.D. Fla. 2001) ................... 7:181-82

Dial One of Mid-South, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecomm. (5th Cir. 2001) ....... 4:245-46, 249-52 Dial One of Mid-South, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecomm. (5th Cir. 2001) ...........................7:276 Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980).....6:28 Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 App. Cas. 562 (appeal taken from Scot.) ..................................... 6:8 DoubleClick, Inc. v. Henderson (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997)................. 7:176-77, 223-24 Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575........... 7:141-43 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985) ................................ 4:249, 252

2005] Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985)......................................... 7:272 Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs. (1992).......6:139-40 Eastwood v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) ................. 6:186 EBay v. Bidder’s Edge (N.D. Cal. 2000) ......... 3:140-43, 152 Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co. (2d Cir. 1982)........................ 2(4):4-5 Eichel v. Marcin (S.D.N.Y. 1913)...........................6:75 Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)........................ 5:14, 18-23, 25; ............................................6:250, 252 Elec. Inspectors, Inc. v. N.Y. Bd. of Fire Underwriters (E.D.N.Y. 2001)...........................4:15

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 1999)......4:253-54, 257-62 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc. (7th Cir. 2000)......................6:214-15 Equine Techs., Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc. (1st Cir. 1995) ........................... 3:178 Erikson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc. (7th Cir. 1994)..................5:85-88, 90 Ettore v. Philco Tel. Broad. Corp. (3d Cir. 1956)............................ 3:160 Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty (N.D. Cal. 1987) ...............4:102, 103 Fed. Communications Comm’n v. Stahlman (D.C. Dist. 1941)....................... 4:155 Feist Publ’n, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (1991)........................ 6:124 Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) ............7:135-36 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)........................... 6:273-78, 281 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (D. Mass. Apr. 27, 1993) ........ 6:273 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (Fed. Cir. 1999) ......2(1):4, 10; 6:274 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................... 6:274

INDEX

xix Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc) ................... 5:32-33, 40-41, ....................... 52-56, 59-60; 6:274-75

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...........6:273, 276-81 Fisher v. Klein (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ..........................5:84 Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc. (9th Cir. 2004).............. 7:301-05 Free Speech Coalition v. Reno (9th Cir. 1999) .............4:178-80, 183 Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................... 5:156-58 Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. CryoTrans, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................... 5:45-46 Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. (1983)......................... 6:155-56 Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)............ 6:312-13 Gilliam v. Am. Broad. Cos. (2d Cir. 1976) ............... 6:226-27, 235-37 Ginsberg v. New York (1968)......4:141 Goldstein v. California (1973)......3:160 Gordon & Breach Sci. Publishers S.A. v. Am. Inst. of Physics (S.D.N.Y. 1994) .................. 7:270-71 Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publ’g Co. [1988] (Ont. C.A.)............. 2(1):9 Grant v. Raymond (1832) ................. 6:5 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co. (1950)............ 5:37-38 Green v. Am. Tobacco Co. (Fla. 1963).............................. 7:41-42

Greenberg v. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y (11th Cir. 2001) ........ 4:223-29 Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Mark O’Flynn (WIPO Admin. Panel May 29, 2001) ....................... 6:47-48 Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co. [2001] VSC 305, 2001 WL 966287 (V.S.C. Aug. 28, 2001)..................... 7:141-43 Habro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc. (D. Mass. 1999)............... 2(2):10 Haelen Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. (2d Cir. 1953) ...................... 6:182-83

xx

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters. (1985)................ 5:70-71, 73-75; 6:95 Harrison v. PPG Indus., Inc. (1980)......................................... 4:241

Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names (4th Cir. 2002)........5:141-42, 146-52 Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entm’t Group Ltd. (W.D. Wash. 1996) .................................4:63 Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (1979).................................3:168, 173 Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) ................... 6:188 Honeywell, Inc. v. Metz Apparatewerke (7th Cir. 1975)..............................7:54 Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Nat’l Semiconductor Corp. (N.D. Cal. 1994) ....................7:63-65 Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 1983)...........5:40-41 Ibanez v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulations (1994)......... 4:248 Image Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (9th Cir. 1997)........................4:25-26 In re Aimster Copyright Litig. (7th Cir. 2003)......................7:304-05 In re Bigio (Fed. Cir. 2004) .....7:313-25 In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. (6th Cir. 2003)........................... 6:302 In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig. (E.D.N.Y. 2003)........................ 6:300 In re Clay (Fed. Cir. 1992).......7:316-17 In re Deuel (Fed. Cir. 1995).............3:13 In re Goodman (Fed Cir. 1993).......................... 4:256 In re GPAC (Fed. Cir. 1995) .....7:17-18 In re Hyatt (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............7:18 In re Indep. Serv. Org. Antitrust Litig. (Fed. Cir. 2000)............4:24-25 In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., [1921] 3 K.B. 560 (K.B. 1921)...................................6:19 In re Starlink Corn Prods. Liab. Litig. (N.D. Ill. 2002).....................6:2 In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig. (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ............. 6:299 In re Wolfe (C.C.P.A. 1958).......... 7:19l In re Wood (C.C.P.A. 1979)....7:315-16

[Vol. 7

Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................... 5:45-46 Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite Pictures, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........................4:22

Intergraph Corp v. Intel Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............2(3):1-2, 7-9 Intergraph Corp v. Intel Corp. (N.D. Ala. 2000)........... 2(3):1-2, 6, 9 Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (1984)...........................6:138 Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc. (Fed Cir. 1998)...................7:341 Kinzenbaw v. Deere & Co. (Fed. Cir. 1984) ...............5:41, 56-58 Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................... 7:339-40

Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2004)......... 7:337-45 Krouse v. Chrysler Can. Ltd. [1973] (Ont. C.A.).................... 2(1):9 L. Batlin & Sons, Inc. v. Snyder (2d Cir. 1976) ........................2(4):3-6 Lamont, DBA Basic Pamphlets v. Postmaster Gen. (1965) ............4:136 Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds (4th Cir. 1990) ...........................6:106 Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953)... 1(2):10-11 Lawler Mfg. Co. v. Bradley Corp. (S.D. Ind. 2000)..... 7:179-80, 221-22 Lewin v. McCreight (E.D. Mich. 1987) .......................6:25 Ligue Contre le Racisme et L’Antisémitisme v. Yahoo! Inc. T.G.I. Paris, Nov. 20, 2000 ...................... 7:143-46 Litton Sys., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................5:48 Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (Cal. 1979) ........................... 3:158-62 Maljack Prods., Inc. v. UAV Corp. (C.D. Cal. 1997)................4:98 Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. Am. Crystal Sugar Co. (1948) ............................................. 4:7 Marietta Corp. v. Fairhurst (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002) ........ 7:178, 223 Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................... 5:46-47

2005] McClurg v. Kingsland (1843)......................................5:20-21 McFarland v. Miller (3d Cir. 1994).............. 3;158, 161-62 MediaOne Group, Inc. v. County of Henrico (4th Cir. 2001)........ 6:287 Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)......................................... 4:133 Merck & Co. v. Lyon (M.D.N.C. 1995)...............7:176, 223

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (9th Cir. 2004)....................7:299-312 Metzke v. May Dep’t Store (W.D. Pa. 1995) ................. 1(3):5, 13 Milano v. Machinenet (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 27, 1998) ................2(1):22 Miller v. California (1973).....................4:133-35, 169-70, ............................................... 191, 194 Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n (Fed. Cir. 1996)......................5:49-50 Monsanto v. Schmeiser, [2001] F.C. 256..............................6:3 Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue (2003).....................6:54-55, 199-202, ..........................................204, 219-21 Murphy v. Christian Press Ass’n Publ’g Co. (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)................................1(1):10 Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Shalala (D.D.C. 2000)............................ 6:298 N. Light Tech., Inc. v. N. Lights Club (1st Cir. 2001)...............4:67-68 N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)........................4:264; 7:268-69

N.Y. Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)......................4:229-34, 236-43 Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands Inc. (2d Cir. 1999)............. 5:116, 125-26; ...............................................6:208-10 Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc. (2d Cir. 1997)............................ 3:142 Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Gulf Power Co. (2002)....6:286-87 Nat’l Cable Television Ass’n v. United States (1974)................. 4:155 Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc., v. West Bend Co. (Fed. Cir. 1996)......................5:48-49

INDEX

xxi NBA Props. v. Untertainment Records (S.D.N.Y. 1999) .........4:247 New Line Cinema Corp. v. Bertlesman Music Group, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ........................3:157 New York et al. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n et al. (2002) .....................................4:15, 20 New York v. Ferber (1982) ..........................4:165-69, 178, ....................................... 183, 187, 191 Nintendo of Am. v. Aeropower Co. (4th Cir. 1994) .............1(3):5, 13 Northland Ins. Cos. v. Baylock (D. Minn. 2000)...........................4:66 Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co. (1985)...................4:9-10 Olson v. Prosoco, Inc. (Iowa 1994)............................ 6:26-27 Omega Importing Corp. v. PetriKine Camera Co. (2d Cir. 1971) ............................6:164 Osborne v. Ohio (1990) ...........................4:167, 170-71 Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States (1973) .................... 4:13-14, 20 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng’g Co., [1961] App. Cas. 388 (P.C. 1961)............................. 6:18-19 Palmer v. Schonhorn Enters., Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. 1967) ...............3:158 Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen (9th Cir. 1998) ............4:63-64; 6:209 Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................... 6:158-59 Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton (1973) .........................................4:135 Parker v. Brown (1943)...................4:14 Pent-R-Books, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. (E.D.N.Y. 1971) .................. 4:138-41 Pepsico v. Redmond (7th Cir. 1995).................... 7:172-74, 181, 221 Pfizer Inc. v. Aceto Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1994) .................... 7:62-63 Picture Music, Inc. v. Bourne, Inc. (2d Cir. 1972) ........................ 5:82-83 Pioneer Magnetics v. Micro Linear Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................... 6:281-82

xxii

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

Playboy Enters. Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 1995) .....................2(1):13 Playboy Enters. Inc. v. Frena (N.D. Tex. 1997)... 2(1):12-13 Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publ’g, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1996)...................7:142-43 Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp. (2d Cir. 1961) ................. 5:120 Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Marley (1972)....................................4:127-28 Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Ontario Printers, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 1984)...................... 4:247 Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass’n (9th Cir. 1997)............. 5:134-35, 137 Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. (3d Cir. 1961)...................7:29, 41-42 ProCD v. Zeidenberg (7th Cir. 1994).........1(1):6, 8, 14, 19; .....................6:65-66, 123-24, 268-69 Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp. (5th Cir. 2001) ...........7:274-78 Prodyne Enter., Inc. v. Julie Pomerantz (Fed. Cir. 1984)......................5:58-59 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)...................4:185-86, 190, 199 RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2000) ......3:126-29 Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs. (D.C. Cir. 2003) ...................7:249-64 Red Lion Broad. Co., v. Fed. Communications Comm’n (1997)......................................... 4:144 Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Servs. (N.D. Cal. 1995)..........2(1):15 Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1995) ..................7:301-02 Rencor Controls, Inc. v. Stinson (D. Me. 2002).........7:178-79, 221-22 Reno v. ACLU (1997) ...............7:97-99 Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. of Travel Dev. (4th Cir. 1999).....6:206-08, 217, 219

[Vol. 7

Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (N.Y. 1902).................6:183

Rodrigue v. Rodrigue (5th Cir. 2000) .............3:165, 169-72 Rogers v. Grimaldi (2d Cir. 1989) ...................... 6:187-88 Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2000)........... 7:54-57 Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co. (9th Cir. 1970).............4:99 Roth v. United States (1969) ................................. 4:132-132 Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works (Fed. Cir. 1996)......... 5:47-48 Rowan v. United States Post Office Dep’t (1970)............ 4:137-38; ............................................... 7:148-49 Schenck v. United States (1919) .........................................4:197 Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Wash. App. 2001).............. 6:311-12 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964) ..................................6:119 Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. (9th Cir. 1992)..................... 6:81-85, 88, 92-97 Sega Enters. Ltd. v. MAPHIA (N.D. Cal. 1994)..................... 2(1):13 Seshadri v. Kasraian (7th Cir. 1997) ....................... 5:86-87 Shaffer v. Heitner (1977)...... 5:145, 147 Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co. (2d Cir. 1963)..........7:302 Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co. (2d Cir. 1946) ........................ 5:81-82 Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co. (2d Cir. 1955) ........................ 5:81-82 Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. v. Festo Corp. (1997) .........................................6:274 Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...........6:148-53, 165 Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp. (9th Cir. 2000) ....................... 6:88-96 Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984) .........................6:81, 230, 232; ................................. 7:249-56, 300-10

2005] Southwall Techs. v. Cardinal IG Co. (Fed. Cir. 1995).....................5:50

Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc. (2d Cir. 2000).........3:175-77, 180-85 State v. Heckel (Wash. 2001).....................7:129, 139 Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. (1953).................................. 1(3):5, 13 Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wayse Tech. (3d Cir. 1991).......1(1):5-8; 6:121-22 SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. (N.D. Ga. 2001) .....................5:70-71 Symantec Corp. v. McAfee Assocs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. June 9, 1998)........... 6:117 Talbert Fuel Sys. Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................6:281-82 Talley v. California (1960) ......7:154-55 Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................5:46 Texas v. Johnson (1989)............... 6:263

The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1999)................2(4):1, 4-5 Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Myron Bezener (Cal. App. 1996) ........ 3:148 Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2000)........................ 3:142 Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News, L.L.C. (3d Cir. 2000).......................6:213-14

Titan Sports, Inc. v. Hellwig (D. Conn. 1999) .......... 3:155-57, 161 Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. (D. Conn. 1997) ................3:157, 161 Trigen-Okla. City Energy Corp. v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. (10th Cir. 2001)......................4:15-17 Turbocare Div. of Demag Delaval v. Gen. Elec. (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................4:22-24

Ty Inc. v. Perryman (7th Cir. 2002)............. 5:163, 166-71 U.S. Healthcare Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila. (3d Cir. 1990).......................7:272-74

INDEX

xxiii U.S. Postal Serv. v. Greenburgh Civic Ass’ns (1981) ............ 4:136-37 U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2003)............ 7:284-88 United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. (1918)....................6:34 United States v. Airline Tariff Publ’g Co. (D.D.C. 1993)............. 4:6 United States v. Am. Library Ass’n (2003) ........................ 7:107-10 United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (2d Cir. 1947) .................6:13, 14 United States v. Griffith (1948) ........................................ 2(3):6 United States v. Kimbrough (5th Cir. 1995) ...........................4:177 United States v. Kleiner (S.D. Fla. 1987) .........................4:174 United States v. Lopez (1995) ................................... 6:250-52 United States v. Maxwell (C.A.A.F. 1996)................ 4:171, 178 United States v. Microsoft (D.C. Cir. 2001).........................6:139 United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948) ..................6:230 United States v. Phila. Nat’l Bank (1963) ..................................... 4:13-14 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley (2d Cir. 2001).......... 6:261-63 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................. 3:129-35 Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publ’g., Ltd. (2d Cir. 1988) .....................1(3):5, 13 V Secret Catalogue v. Moseley (W.D. Ky. 2000).................. 6:200-01 V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley (6th Cir. 2001)...... 6:209-11 Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council (1976) ................................... 4:128-30 Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) .........................................4:128

Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc. (11th Cir. 2003) ..... 6:295-97, 300-03 Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd. (5th Cir. 1988). ......... 6:119, 121

Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l, Inc. (5th Cir. 2002) ....... 5:131-32, 135-40

xxiv

TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP.

Verdis sa v. SafeMail, Inc., No. D2003-009 (WIPO Admin. Panel Apr. 2, 2003)................6:45-47 Viacom Inc. v. Ingram Enters., Inc. (8th Cir. 1998) ................... 3:180 Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagon of Am., Inc. (4th Cir. 2001)........... 4:65, 67; 5:144 Visitor Indus Publ’ns, Inc. v. NOPC, L.L.C. (E.D. La. 2000) ............................5:92 Warner Bros., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Co. (2d Cir. 1983)..................... 3:157 Warner Jenkinson Co., Inc., v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. (1997)........................... 4:21, 5:32-33, ...........................37-38, 41-45, 54-56; ...............................................6:275-76 Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........7:59-60 Weissman v. Freeman (2d Cir. 1989).........................5:83-84 Wella Corp. v. Wella Graphics, Inc. (2d Cir. 1994)..................... 3:178 Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2003)................7:289-91 Wendt v. Host Int’l, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997)......................3:159-62 Westchester Media v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc. (5th Cir. 2000)........................... 6:215 Wheaton v. Peters (1834) ............. 5:132 Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc. (3d Cir.1986)................................6:76 White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 1992) ........3:159; 6:188 Wiener v. NEC Elecs., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1996)......................5:45-46 William Bradley Pitt v. Playgirl, Inc. (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1997)...........2(1):8 Williams v. Crichton (2d Cir. 1996)............................ 3:157 Winter v. DC Comics (Ct. App. 2002) ....................6:194-95 Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. (1888)............................................5:21 World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Bozell (S.D.N.Y. 2001)........................ 7:274 World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson (1980)............ 1(3):5, 13

[Vol. 7

Wright v. Warner Books (2d Cir. 1991) ............................6:117 Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (9th Cir. 2004) ..................... 7:145-46 Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (N.D. Cal. 2001).................. 7:144-46 Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) .............6:310-12, 318 Zygo Corp. v. Wyko Corp. (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............... 5:47-48, 51