Diluting Free Expression: Statutory First Amendment Proxies in Trademark Dilution Law

Trademark dilution law, a relatively recent innovation in federal trademark doctrine, has serious implications for free expression. Dilution law purports to protect famous trademark owners from blurring and tarnishment, although critics of the doctrine suggest the harms of dilution are frequently overblown, if not imaginary. This article first highlights the differences between standard trademark infringement and trademark dilution, including the fair use provisions of the latter statute. It then analyzes the conceptual mismatch between the fair use provisions and dilution, focusing particularly on the problems with the nominative fair use doctrine. The article also explores the special problems dilution doctrine creates for parodists, including some court decisions that protect only an extremely narrow range of parodies. Finally, the article offers concluding perspectives on this difficult area of trademark doctrine.     

Adventures in the Copyright Zone: The Puzzling Absence of Independent First Amendment Defenses in Contemporary Copyright Disputes

Copyright law, for most of its history, has been exempt from the requirements of the First Amendment free speech and press clauses. As copyright law has expanded in scope and duration, scholars have begun to raise questions about its First Amendment immunity. This essay examines the fundamental conflict between copyright doctrine and the First Amendment. Although courts have been quick to dismiss the application of free speech standards to copyright disputes, the proper relationship between these two areas of the law is less than clear. The essay explores the current understanding of the intersection of free speech and copyright, largely derived from the work of Professor Melville Nimmer. It analyzes the difficulties with two specific doctrines by which the Supreme Court of the United States has justified copyright's free speech immunity – the idea/expression dichotomy and the fair use doctrine – then concludes by offering a new approach to applying the First Amendment to copyright law in a more robust manner.     

论商标的指示性合理使用

在司法实践中,正品转售商经常会援引指示性合理使用以抗辩自己在店铺招牌上使用他人注册商标的行为不构成侵权。通过梳理目前国内的典型案例,可发现当转售商单独或突出性使用他人商标于其店招之上时,法院仍然会作出侵权判定,但不同的法院在涉案行为侵犯商品商标或服务商标,以及指示性合理使用的构成要件问题上存在分歧。进一步考察美国及欧盟的立法及司法实践,可以总结出指示性合理使用需要满足必要性、合理性、善意以及不构成相关公众混淆四个构成要件。在使用他人商标指示他人商品的来源的行为上,指示性合理使用与权利用尽的概念范围有重叠之处。指示性合理使用的主张以涉案行为构成商标性使用为前提,其作为一种构成商标侵权的例外,宜在涉案行为满足商标侵权的构成要件的基础上,作为侵权抗辩理由进行援引。无混淆可能性作为指示性合理使用的必然结果和内在要求,应成为指示性合理使用的构成要件之一。同时,若权利人的商标为其企业名称或其主要组成部分,转售商的使用还涉嫌构成擅自使用他人有一定影响的企业名称(字号)等不正当竞争行为。     

Free Speech Meets the Publicity Tort: Transformative Use Analysis in Right of Publicity Law

The intersection of intellectual property law and First Amendment concerns has become increasingly contested. The right of publicity has proven particularly difficult to reconcile with free speech values. Recently, some courts have begun importing a “transformative use” approach from copyright law to reconcile tensions between publicity rights and free expression. This article analyzes the problems with the transformative use doctrine and suggests the outlines of an alternative approach.     

Audience Measurement and Media Policy: Audience Economics,the Diversity Principle,and the Local People Meter

Professor Gerald Gunther famously declared strict scrutiny to be “‘strict’ in theory and fatal in fact” in 1972. Although Professor Gunther's pithy and influential slogan may have been a reasonably accurate characterization at that time, strict scrutiny in the realm of the First Amendment is now much less fatal to government regulation of expression. This article explores the beginnings of the strict scrutiny test and the underpinnings of its subsequent dilution. The article examines the multiple ways courts can avoid applying strict scrutiny and argues that compelling state interests are proliferating in a manner that is harmful to robust speech protection. It also critiques the lack of precision in narrow tailoring analysis. The article concludes that First Amendment strict scrutiny has serious weaknesses that threaten to undermine vigorous protection for expression and offers suggestions for increasing the rigor and precision of the doctrine.     

Viewpoint Discrimination in the Military's Filmmaker Assistance Program and the First Amendment

The U.S. military provides assistance to filmmakers in the form of use of military sites, equipment and personnel, which can provide significant cost savings to filmmakers. The military, however, routinely denies this assistance to filmmakers whose productions portray the military in a way it considers objectionable, actions that constitute viewpoint discrimination by the government. While this may seem to be an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights, application of forum law and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine lead to the conclusion that the military's viewpoint discrimination is permissible and does not violate the First Amendment.     

Gag orders: Shields or swords in the constitutional conflict between fair trial and free press?

In 1976, in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Supreme Court characterized gag orders as the “most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”; Yet courts impose gag orders that restrict media coverage of courts and trial participants. Many groups believe the use of gag orders is increasing. However, no previous study has attempted to quantify the frequency of gag orders or to explore judicial attitudes about the issuance of such orders. This analysis of the case law and exploratory survey of judges in Florida suggests that courts issue gag orders to protect fair trials, participant safety and privacy, and the sanctity of the courtroom.

This article also suggests that conflict over gag orders arises because judges disagree about the core meanings of the First and Sixth Amendments. This research indicates that judges' individual interpretations of the Constitution color their determinations of whether indirect gags on trial participants, rather than on the media, are impermissible assaults on the First Amendment or are permissible shields of fair trials. Judges tend to be either First Amendment apostles or Sixth Amendment followers, and Sixth Amendment judges are more likely to impose and uphold gag orders. The authors suggest that this schism is unlikely to be resolved without guidance from the Supreme Court.     

美国反垄断法豁免中的诺尔——本灵顿原则评析

诺尔——本灵顿原则是由美国联邦最高法院通过几个案例确立的联邦反垄断法中的一个原则,其主要含义是:根据《美国宪法第一修正案》的规定,即使竞争者通过游说政府而改变法律将会削弱竞争,其行为也不违反反垄断法。诺尔——本灵顿原则是协调《谢尔曼法》的重要目标与公民请愿权利和各级政府有效决策之间关系的产物。诺尔——本灵顿原则对中国的反垄断法执法也有一定启发意义,在执法过程应当全面协调经营者的竞争利益与其他经营者的宪法权利、与政府行为的关系。     

Measuring Reed’s Reach: Content Discrimination in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals After Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Commentators and justices on the Supreme Court of the United States speculated when the Court delivered its opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert in 2015 that the case would dramatically reshape First Amendment law. This article analyzes Reed’s impact to date in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. The article demonstrates that, although Reed has been consequential in some circuits, it has not been the basis of any First Amendment revolution. Indeed, the research supports the conclusion that many circuit courts seem to be actively working to narrow Reed’s reach. Moreover, the article concludes that Reed did little to clarify — and in some ways made worse — what has been a problematic doctrine for decades.     

The use of state crime and accident records for targeted,direct‐mail solicitations: Commercial speech,access and privacy

Direct‐mail solicitations targeted to individuals identified in state crime and accident records raise privacy concerns. State statutes seeking to restrict the commercial use of information in these records raise First Amendment implications for both the senders and receivers of information in this context. This article analyzes conflicting court opinions on the constitutionality of state statutes seeking to limit direct‐mail solicitations targeted to individuals involved in crimes and accidents through controls on availability and use of information contained in public crime and accident records. The article suggests that statutes permanently barring commercial access to public crime and accident records or banning commercial use of information obtained from these records run afoul of the recently invigorated commercial speech doctrine and violate the First Amendment.     

Vicarious Liability and the Private University Student Press

The lack of a First Amendment prohibition against administrative interference with the student press leaves a private university open to legal liability from the content of student publications through the doctrine of vicarious liability. To insulate a private university from such a lawsuit, commentators have encouraged the adoption of formal policy statements that give student journalists the right to make all content decisions. But given the trend in vicarious liability law, such policy statements are unlikely to protect a private university from liability for torts committed by its dependent student press. Instead, decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States suggest, and this article argues, that the adoption of policies and procedures designed to prevent and correct foreseeable misconduct associated with the dissemination of student-produced content will help protect a private university from vicarious liability arising from the operation of its student press.     

A Doctrine at Risk: Content Neutrality in a Post-Reed Landscape

Although the Supreme Court of the United States has deployed the content-neutrality doctrine at least twenty-three times in the last decade, two recent cases — McCullen v. Coakley and Reed v. Town of Gilbert — demonstrate that disagreement among the justices over the meaning of the doctrine is endangering its utility for First Amendment jurisprudence. This article describes the manifestations of this disagreement and suggests that without further clarification about the doctrine's nature, purpose and application, the venerable First Amendment canon may soon either lose practical tenability or disintegrate into constitutional oblivion. Such an outcome, the article suggests, is both ill advised and avoidable. By taking several practical steps, the Supreme Court can go a long way toward preserving the doctrine's usefulness for upholding legitimate government interests and protecting the freedom of expression.     

Courtroom Access After 9/11: A Pathological Perspective

The dangers that times of national stress inevitably pose for First Amendment freedoms led legal scholar Vincent Blasi to formulate what he called the "pathological perspective." Blasi argued that, because the nation is more willing to give up fundamental liberties during these periods, it is incumbent upon the courts to anticipate such times and create legal rules that will withstand such pressures. This article examines the Supreme Court's courtroom access doctrine from a pathological perspective. It concludes that the confusing legacy of the Court's decisions in courtroom access cases has increased the danger to First Amendment rights during this critical time, and it proposes a more robust doctrine of courtroom access drawn from the pathological perspective.     

Challenging Civil Contempt: The Limits of Judicial Power in Cases Involving Journalists

Despite their assertion of a First Amendment or common law reporter's privilege in federal courts, journalists continue to face jail sentences and exorbitant fines for refusing to divulge their confidential sources when subpoenaed. Efforts to pass even a limited federal shield law have failed so far. This article offers another avenue to protect journalists—examining the roots of contempt law and policy to highlight limits on the contempt power of judges. It argues that because journalists are part of a group resting on steadfast moral and professional convictions, they may validly argue that confinement and excessive fines are improper sanctions. The article also suggests refinements in shield law proposals and other legislation to clarify the extent of judicial contempt power.     

寻求注册与使用在商标确权中的合理平衡

在第一性的意义上，商标权无疑源于企业在交易活动中对商标的实际使用。这一论断既可从商标制度演进的历史中得到验证，又契合财产权劳动学说和符号学基本原理。尽管如此，各主要国家都先后建立了商标注册制度，并由此形成商标权注册取得和使用取得两种确权模式。无论采取何种模式，各国商标法乃至国际公约都作了充分的技术设计，致力于寻求注册和使用在法律效力上的合理平衡。我国现行商标法采取一种近乎绝对的注册取得确权模式，在客观上助长了商标抢注行为，导致大量注册商标与市场实际脱节，影响了商标制度的正常运行。应在总体上沿袭注册取得传统模式的同时，明确规定基于使用也可取得商标权，并依此对商标法进行修订。     

Introducing the Open Clause to improve copyright flexibility in cyberspace? Analysis and commentary on the proposed “two-step test” in the Third Amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC,in comparison with the EU and the US

The so called “three-step test”, that the limitations and exceptions of copyright shall be allowed in certain special cases, provided that they do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author, grants copyright flexibilities to balance the interests of all stakeholders, especially within the European system of circumscribed limitations and exceptions. This is essential for the domain of computer law, confronted by rapid and unpredictable global technological developments, and is, thus, enshrined in the most important international intellectual property (IP) treaties. Through the proposed third amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC, the legislature intends to adopt this test while also introducing an open-ended list of limitations and exceptions that constitutes a China-specific “two-step test.” This contravenes prima facie the thesis endorsed by the WTO Panel in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act in 2000. In contrast, court decisions in China frequently apply the fair use doctrine of US copyright law, neglecting to consider its peculiar context of the US common law tradition and, thus, unduly expanding the Chinese courts' discretionary power.This paper summarizes the case law in China and takes a comparative approach to address the divergence between the judicial application of cyber copyright law and the existing legislation. It suggests revising the proposed Article 43 of the Copyright Law of the PRC to capture the due interpretation of the three-step test, thereby finessing the delineation between rights protection and free use with the compensation of remuneration under the principle of proportionality. It argues that transplanting the US fair use doctrine into Chinese copyright law is feasible, but with the preconditions of endeavouring to strengthen judicial reform to integrate the IP adjudication systems, enhancing the coherence and efficiency of copyright enforcement, and facilitating consistent dialogues between scholars, practitioners, and lawmakers.     

The Heckler’s Veto: Using First Amendment Theory and Jurisprudence to Understand Current Audience Reactions Against Controversial Speech

Pundits have recently used the term “heckler's veto” to describe instances in which vocal audiences seek to silence offensive or controversial speech by putting pressure on institutions that control the private forums that host the speech. The use of the term in these contexts, however, fails to take into account the jurisprudential nuances of the heckler's veto principle, as well as the principle's unique position within First Amendment theory. This article fills a void in mass communication law scholarship by examining the development of the heckler's veto principle in cases from the Supreme Court of the United States that discuss the persistent challenges that the heckler's veto principle presents and by analyzing the principle from the perspective of First Amendment theory. The purpose of these analyses is to distill the social values of tolerating extreme speech, and to apply those values to the governance of private forums of communication.     

商标转让的理论建构与制度设计

作为商标这一符号的所指,商誉乃是其不可分割的组成部分。传统商标转让规则,无论要求商标连同商誉转让抑或允许其单独转让,其表述本身就背离了符号学基本原理,在适用过程中最终都转换为,要求商标连同营业转让或允许其自由转让。不进行这样的转换,上述规则根本就无从适用,更遑论合理与否。历史地看,商标转让制度经历了从连同转让向自由转让的模式转变。在当代,包括我国在内的各主要国家和地区实际适用的都是自由转让模式,这也正是巴黎公约和TRIPs协定所持基本立场。在我国,出于保护消费者利益的考虑,立法者还为商标受让人设定了品质保证义务。表面看来,上述规定系商标品质保证功能的具体体现,实则违背商标制度的运行机理,理当删除。     

美国打击色情物品犯罪的司法实践及困境

美国联邦最高法院从1957年开始掀起审查色情案件的高潮,形成了一系列先例,确立了"硬核色情物品"和"儿童色情物品"不受宪法第一修正案保护的原则.但是美国社会,尤其是联邦最高法院的大法官们对色情物品的危害、淫秽物品的标准以及色情物品受不受宪法第一修正案的保护等问题一直争论不休,导致色情物品泛滥成灾.