Sarah FackrellIt's fascinating to compare the reactions to the #BadSpaniels cert grant among trademark people & among everyone else. Most people I've heard from in the latter group are like: "Are you kidding me? How can THAT be a trademark problem?"
As a larger point, I think it's important for subject-matter experts not to ignore or discount the "are you kidding me?" factor in big cases.
It reminds me of seeing a certain #SCOTUS Justice roll his eyes during the oral arguments in Apple v. Samsung.
Many in the design patent crowd were SO convinced the Federal Circuit was right. But their statutory interpretation just sounded ridiculous to everyone else.
Chris Carlin@design_law
@design_law What do you mean by not ignoring the "are you kidding me" factor?
Do you mean experts should anticipate and avoid pitfalls, or that they should be prepared to explain compellingly, or something different entirely?
@crcarlin Yes, both of those things. And just, in general, thinking about how arguments will sound outside of their own echo chambers.
Syscrusher@design_law Oyez.org -- Now this engineer with a side interest in law has a new time-suck in his life. (Kidding aside, thanks for mentioning that site, which is a handy reference.)
Skimming down the list, I noticed Gonzalez vs. Google LLC. Is that likely to be as seminal as its summary suggests it might be, or narrowed to very specific situations?
@syscrusher Yeah, it's a great resource! The Gonzalez case is about Section 230, which is not my area of expertise. I'd direct all questions on that topic to @jkosseff and @ericgoldman
Bethany Berger@design_law Oh my--I hadn't heard of the cert grant, but I (a non-tradebook person) literally cited this case in our property casebook along other cases showing that parody works that don't confuse don't violate trademarks.
Mark A Lemley@design_law reasonable trademark people feel that way too
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette@marklemley @design_law Serious question: What's the best argument that the 9th Cir got it wrong? I don't think it's the cert petition's concern with marijuana-infused candy…
@PatentScholar @design_law on Rogers the open question is whether this is an expressive work to which Rogers should apply. And one could argue the treatment of tarnishment is too categorical. But I don’t think there is even a straight-face argument that this should ultimately be found infringing.