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:
Profs. @JeanneFromer @CJSprigman & Scott Hemphill discuss #StarAthletica v. #VarsityBrands, decided yesterday: https://t.co/A6U05cnjxr
— 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
is not a terribly helpful term#copyrights #trademarks
— Ed Timberlake (@TimberlakeLaw) March 22, 2017
Perfect time to review the history of Star Athletica via the Landslide® mag article “Gimmie an “S” for Separability” https://t.co/lxlqWYq9by pic.twitter.com/WHWKWxCvSV
— 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
It’s not over yet, though. #StarAthletica case to go back to lower court to determine originality. https://t.co/Ryx0Chblve pic.twitter.com/uTQ6yzw9qN
— THE FASHION LAW (@TheFashionLaw) March 22, 2017
Great minds think alike: New analysis of #SCOTUS opinion in Star Athletica v. Varsity @fashionlawinst https://t.co/xVxjXsY9Eo
— FashionLawInstitute (@FashionLawInst) March 22, 2017
@CR Here exactly is the problem @tedcruz was talking about — terrible headline; awful lede re the Star Athletica #copyright decision: pic.twitter.com/b8TTz6IAGF
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) March 22, 2017
A brief comment on Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, https://t.co/weMy8kiKnc #copyright
— Marie-Andree Weiss (@MarieAndreeW) March 22, 2017
#SCOTUS Star Athletica v. Varsity followed rec of @fashionlawinst amicus: statute defines copyright standard/test; replicability = key
— Jeff Trexler (@jefftrexler) March 22, 2017
The contrast between the concurrence and dissent in the #scotus #ip #copyright decision in Star Athletica is great. https://t.co/96YL1c3815
— Demetrio Aspiras (@DemetrioAspiras) March 22, 2017
Big win for #design in #SCOTUS #StarAthletica case. Once again, misplaced “functionality” arguments put to rest. Sect 101 means what it says
— Christopher Carani (@ccarani) March 22, 2017
If #Gorsuch is the copyright skeptic his opinions suggest he is, his vote wouldn’t have mattered in #StarAthletica today.
— Chris Buccafusco (@cjbuccafusco) March 22, 2017
At page 13 of his Star Athletica dissent, Justice Breyer channels his inner @Posner_Thoughts #SCOTUS #CatLamps pic.twitter.com/fKWCFZ6Vx5
— Andrew Kloster (@ARKloster) March 22, 2017
Much to digest in #StarAthletica, but among other things Brandir’s process test is no more. Audience reception, not authorial intent, guides pic.twitter.com/5jYHhvA1Ep
— 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
@staciriordan SCOTUS did not hold that cheerleading uniforms are protected by #copyright. Beware of misleading headlines #FashionLaw
— Staci Riordan (@staciriordan) March 22, 2017
Everybody concerned about the Varsity Brands #copyright #law #scotus decision: What are you worried is now copyrightable that wasn’t before?
— Marc Whipple (@legalinspire) March 22, 2017
We’re all definitely going to be busy with this stuff for a long time to come.
Originally posted 2017-03-23 13:58:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter