Rah rah raw
TTABlog declines to comment on S. Ct. cheerleader uniform decision.
— TTABlog (@TTABlog) March 22, 2017
Indeed. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® is also not ready to weigh in on Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1823 – Supreme Court 2016. To be truthful, I kind of danced around it when I first mentioned it on the blog here; I did sort of analyze it, though not particularly incisively, I’ll grant you, here; though at the end of this thing — trust me, you don’t have to watch it — I did venture that an affirmance seemed likely, albeit with some trimming or simplification.
What I will do is this. Two things. I will do for you two things. First, a roundup, below. Second, a blog post, yes, next week. But it will be a very special blog post. Unlike in the past, when I’ve done a roundup of a really big decision and sat back and, after benefiting from everyone else’s thinking, weighed in ponderously, we’re going to have, instead, a surprise special guest post by someone who is already legitimately thinking originally all by himself. This of course is the premier variety of originally.
For now, here’s the roundup of my selection of tweets about the decision, courtesy of the Twitter embed, which makes this process a lot easier than it used to be. There is a lot of food for thought here, and it is presented in no particular order:
— NYU Law (@nyulaw) March 23, 2017
After messy oral argument, SCOTUS Star Athletica holding is clear on a few points: Brandir “designer intent” and marketing tests are dead.
— Victoria Schwartz (@ProfVSchwartz) March 22, 2017
Copyrights at the Supreme Court: Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands https://t.co/0bye16RfsC
— Gene Quinn (@ipwatchdog) March 22, 2017
After Star Athletica
(& all of human history)
I think we can agree that
— Ed Timberlake (@TimberlakeLaw) March 22, 2017
— ABA-IPL (@abaipl) March 22, 2017
Star Athletica dissent refers to Mazer lamp base as a “ballet” dancer… it is usually described as a “Balinese” dancer. Here’s the deposit: pic.twitter.com/a2OxYRHIB8
— Sy Damle (@SyDamle) March 22, 2017
— THE FASHION LAW (@TheFashionLaw) March 22, 2017
— FashionLawInstitute (@FashionLawInst) March 22, 2017
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) March 22, 2017
— Marie-Andree Weiss (@MarieAndreeW) March 22, 2017
— Jeff Trexler (@jefftrexler) March 22, 2017
— Demetrio Aspiras (@DemetrioAspiras) March 22, 2017
— Christopher Carani (@ccarani) March 22, 2017
— Chris Buccafusco (@cjbuccafusco) March 22, 2017
— Andrew Kloster (@ARKloster) March 22, 2017
— Joseph Fishman (@jpfishman) March 22, 2017
Will S Ct ruling allowing © for designs as simple as Varsity Brands’ produce registration rush by squatters, as with domain names?
— Paul Alan Levy (@paulalanlevy) March 23, 2017
— Staci Riordan (@staciriordan) March 22, 2017
— Marc Whipple (@legalinspire) March 22, 2017
We’re all definitely going to be busy with this stuff for a long time to come.