In the 1990s, Marquette University Law School initiated a comprehensive curriculum of courses in the traditional areas of intellectual property (IP) law: patent, copyright, and trademark. This dedicated course of study quickly established Marquette University Law School as a leader in IP education. Drawing on that reputation, the Marquette University Law School established the IPILR to provide a student-edited forum for scholarly discourse on important issues that face IP attorneys in the United States. Though focusing on its mandate to present topics of interest to attorneys in the United States, the IPILR has acknowledged the breadth of the field by actively seeking papers addressing international IP issues. The inaugural issue of the IPILR was published in 1997. The IPILR was published annually through the 2002–2003 volume. Thereafter, the IPILR increased publication to two times per year with the 2003– 2004 volume. In 2005, an additional, special issue was published dedicated entirely to articles about the first ten years of the TRIPS Agreement. The twenty-second volume of the IPLR continued the tradition of providing our readership with a broad range of IP articles authored by academics and practitioners alike.
Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review的外部链接
US，WI，Milwaukee
Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review转发了
Marquette Innovation & Intellectual Property Law Review Call for Submissions The Marquette Innovation & Intellectual Property Law Review (IIPLR) is still open for submissions for its 2024-2025 year! This is open to professors, practicing attorneys, and any others with relevant experience in the field! Anyone interested can contact me for more information!
Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review转发了
The Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review is currently accepting articles for our upcoming issue. The Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review publishes scholarship devoted to all areas of intellectual property law and innovation law, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, privacy, technology law, and the law of entrepreneurship. If you are interested, please do not hesitate to reach out to us via the following email address: [email protected]. We look forward to hearing from you! #intellectualproperty #innovation #lawreview
The Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review is currently accepting articles for our upcoming issue. The Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review publishes scholarship devoted to all areas of intellectual property law and innovation law, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, privacy, technology law, and the law of entrepreneurship. If you are interested, please do not hesitate to reach out to us via the following email address: [email protected]. We look forward to hearing from you! #intellectualproperty #innovation #lawreview
Our concluding highlight is the 2023 Helen Nies Lecture on Intellectual Property, delivered by Margo Bagley, Vice Dean and Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. In her lecture, Bagley focuses on the history of patent law in the United States, showcasing how American practices have influenced the development of intellectual property laws in other nations. A concern for the United States today is the rapid increase of patent applications in China, leading their patent office to surpass the USPTO as the world’s leading recipient of such applications. For the United States to come back in the intellectual property world, it has attempted to diversify its inventor base by actively engaging women and other underrepresented minorities. While incentives for innovation have historically been targeted to a select few, Bagley highlights how the historical targeting of incentives for innovation to a select few represents a missed opportunity. Special thanks to Professor Bagley for delivering such an insightful Nies Lecture at Marquette University Law School last year. Also, please join us in reading her full article here: https://lnkd.in/gz28HDRv
When drafting the Lanham Act, Congress decided that consent was required when using a person’s name or image as a trademark. However, what happens when someone provides consent at one time, but later revokes it? Our final student comment titled “Withdrawing Lanham Act Section 2(C) Consent: What Should Courts Do?” written by Marquette J.D. Candidate Zachary Semancik addresses this unresolved issue. The comment begins by providing background on how Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act provides a pathway for names to be trademarked, contingent on the consent of the person who bears the name. However, Section 2(c) remains silent on whether that consent can be rescinded. This issue recently arose when Luca Don?i? attempted to revoke trademark rights from his mother when he previously consented to it. Although the attempt to cancel the mark was dropped in Don?i?’s case, this comment explores potential approaches that courts could take when confronted with this set of circumstances. Please join us in reading the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gEsqQw6E
Trademark law can be confusing, especially when navigating the "likelihood of confusion" analysis regarding infringement. Authored by Marquette J.D. Candidate Sean Flaherty, "Keeping It Wreal: How the Eleventh Circuit’s Wreal Decision is Better Suited for a Uniform Reverse Confusion Multifactor Analysis" sheds light on an area of trademark law that remains somewhat undecided: reverse confusion. In his article, Flaherty describes reverse confusion as the scenario where "consumers associate a senior user’s mark with a junior user," in contrast to the conventional analysis used when determining a likelihood of confusion. Although the Supreme Court has recognized reverse confusion, legislation and Supreme Court precedent remain silent on how to effectively analyze its presence in a particular inquiry. Consequently, different circuits have applied conflicting tests, resulting in uncertainty in litigating these claims. After reviewing the differing tests created by the circuits, Flaherty recommends the adoption of a uniform test. Named the "Market Plus Intent" approach, as introduced by the Eleventh Circuit in Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, this framework incorporates a crucial intent factor that is absent in other circuits' analysis. Please join us in reading the full article here: https://lnkd.in/g4UmdHre
Our journal is proud to share our student comments. The first is titled “The Effects of Section 101’s Subject Matter Eligibility Requirement on Fintech Patent Valuation Models” authored by Fhernam Batiz.??Fhernam Batiz is a J.D. Candidate graduating from Marquette Law School this upcoming Spring 2024. His comment dives specifically into the fascinating world of Fintech patents. A Fintech patent, or financial technology, has revolutionized the way we as consumers pay online or transfer money by just tapping your card or phone or paying in monthly installments.?The revolutionized way of payments is central to big industry business models, and start-ups. This paper shifts to discuss the patent valuation models and validity hurdles specific to Fintech patents. https://lnkd.in/gKvaMX9J
Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review转发了
Our second featured article, titled “A Questionable Categorization-Trademark’s Struggle to Protect Tribal Cultural Property”?is authored by Attorney Emilie (Smith) Rohde, Corporate & Securities Associate Attorney at Amundsen Davis LLC and graduate of?Marquette University Law School’s class of 2023. This article delves into a major issue within Trademark Law - how the law responds when brands try to culturally appropriate Native names, symbols, or insignia through trademark registration.??During public hearings by the USPTO, a member of the Zia Pueblo expressed that “[w]ith the exploitation of these symbols, their meaning is depleted. This, in turn, invariably affects our self-worth and sense of dignity.” Furthermore, this article navigates the nuances behind cultural insignia and intellectual property and how these forms of intangible property intersect but also differentiate. Additionally, the article provides a comprehensive exploration of current intellectual property law safeguards for cultural property, with a particular focus on the Native Tribal Database. Lastly, Attorney Rohde explores potential avenues through which intellectual property frameworks could more effectively address and mitigate the challenges associated with cultural appropriation within trademark law. Please join us in reading the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gh6CwqH6
Our second featured article, titled “A Questionable Categorization-Trademark’s Struggle to Protect Tribal Cultural Property”?is authored by Attorney Emilie (Smith) Rohde, Corporate & Securities Associate Attorney at Amundsen Davis LLC and graduate of?Marquette University Law School’s class of 2023. This article delves into a major issue within Trademark Law - how the law responds when brands try to culturally appropriate Native names, symbols, or insignia through trademark registration.??During public hearings by the USPTO, a member of the Zia Pueblo expressed that “[w]ith the exploitation of these symbols, their meaning is depleted. This, in turn, invariably affects our self-worth and sense of dignity.” Furthermore, this article navigates the nuances behind cultural insignia and intellectual property and how these forms of intangible property intersect but also differentiate. Additionally, the article provides a comprehensive exploration of current intellectual property law safeguards for cultural property, with a particular focus on the Native Tribal Database. Lastly, Attorney Rohde explores potential avenues through which intellectual property frameworks could more effectively address and mitigate the challenges associated with cultural appropriation within trademark law. Please join us in reading the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gh6CwqH6
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act serves as both a protective shield and a regulatory tool for social media platforms. It allows social media platforms to be “shielded from liability, but they also get a sword to moderate the content that they host.” However, a significant issue emerges when these service providers themselves remain unchecked. Elizabeth Jaffe, Associate Professor at Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, describes the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in?Gonzalez v. Google, LLC?in her article “Looking for Liability for Harmful Social Media Content and Cyberbullying After Gonzalez V. Google, LLC.” Major social media platforms like Google and X are flooded with negative content. More importantly, these social media platforms often fail to promptly remove reported content. The persistence of such content circulating online can lead to severe consequences, particularly in terms of cyberbullying and harassment. The article critically examines the pressing need for reforming Section 230 to compel these platforms to assume responsibility for the harm caused by negative content. Please join us in reading the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gw_adPdJ