get in, losers, we're going... to sue ICE for patent infringement
www.iam-media.com/article/surv...
get in, losers, we're going... to sue ICE for patent infringement
www.iam-media.com/article/surv...
actually all my "personal brand" alerts this week are about teens i guess
www.forbes.com/sites/sarahh...
"swiftie" added to the dictionary: language accretion via trademark registration?
www.kvue.com/video/life/s...
...aaand here's one about high school students going to summer camp where they can learn to design their personal brand
news.nau.edu/summer-camp-...
when i present my project on (against) personal brand as IP i mention PB used to be for entrepreneurs & celebs but it's now billed as required for everyone
here's a current article about high school students receiving "personal brand coaching"
shelterislandreporter.timesreview.com/2026/03/02/s...
it was definitely my longest time from submission to acceptance in my ~14 years of publishing scholarship
& in chatting with folks at an IP conference last weekend, everyone was in the same boat, including the very fanciest among us
i feel for the junior/pretenured folks especially...
a great jumping-off point for noem to launch her career as a full-time influencer!
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
this book was going great until it mixed up patent with trademark π
none of it is that bad except I think sour patch will be kind of gross but idk π€·π»ββοΈ
π
weird hamantaschen my kids made this year:
-sour patch kid
-crushed thin mint
-exploded rainbow marshmallow unicorn
-mixed berry nutella chocolate chip
-non-triangular dirty ball of dough
-mystery leftover halloween candy?
"Lululemon struck the deal amid pressure from Moretβs bid to cancel two of the companyβs design patents covering its bestselling 'Scuba' sweatshirts."
yessssss
Thanks for live tweeting my presentation! FYI my proposal - which I include in my new "Trademarks and Free Speech" book - is a statutory defense for noncommercial use of a mark other than as a mark. Such uses are very unlikely to cause source confusion.
boston to nyc π
am slightly concerned this is amtrakβs way of warning me the 4 hour ride might actually take 9?
extremely not
the math is really not mathing
I spoke with @puck.news about this & discussed it on thursdayβs βinfluencer lawβ panel at @nusl
meta is adding AI slop links to unwitting influencersβ posts, which looks like false advertising, false endorsement, & misappropriation of right of publicity
puck.news/behind-insta...
I hear you but I probably donβt do justice to the project in my live-tweeting it so I hope people will reserve judgment until they read the draft!
Last session of #WIPIP2026, and Alex Roberts @lexlanham.bsky.social asks βare we human, or are we brands now?β Or βI curated this look, so I must own it!β - Litigating Personal Brand: Intellectual Property & Construction of the Self
how to accomplish?
*congress could change the law (haha)
*could accomplish through the courts, which is where these problems were created in the first place
a TM owner can have & assert both rights, but they can't be alternative claims in the same case. your theory is either i'm using this as a signifier, or i'm not. otherwise we go down the path of dilution.
then we wouldn't need sponsorship confusion at all. we can get rid of initial interest & post-sale confusion. all of those doctrines do far more harm than good, and only work in the service of protecting brand rights. most uses on unrelated goods won't be viewed as confusing.
proposal includes a renown requirement & Ps have to prove Ds are trying to trade on their brand value, which incl. using something identical or extremely similar (more similar than TM law requires)
if the thing i want is the brand, the attempted substitute needs to be the same
what are brand rights?
interest isn't in IDing goods: the brand itself is the intrinsic value, the thing people want. they might not signal quality of underlying product--there might not even be an underlying product--but just the brand itself, which ppl value for its own sake
the authors have resisted these trends as hard as possible, but have lost the battle. what would it mean to give those quasi-property or misappropriation rights in brands explicitly? brand rights should be brand rights, not trademark rights.
TMs are supposed to prevent confusion, but increasingly it does so many other things. product placement, merchandise rights, brands as just brands.
so we have accommodated that with post-sale, initial interest, distortions on LOC, association/affiliation
lemley & mckenna: "trademarks without confusion: can brand rights rescue trademark law?"
#wipip26
farley argues the substantive choices were hidden in procedural dress, but they're in there and they're important
treaty itself says "this is procedural, not substantive"--but that's not true