IP class 14

murphy bed. 
if your term becomes generic, you lose your TM rights.

why allow a benefit to be taken away?
policing the trademark is important: we may ask, what has the trademark holder done to protect their trademark, such as marketing, lawsuits,
but there are circumstances where we want for any manufacturer to be able to use the term because of the spectrum of distinctiveness. in terms of generic marks, we want all manufacturers to have access so that there is competition in the market.

in June 2006, OED added "Google" as a verb. in context of murphy bed, this is a problem because it is a threat to successful mark owners. the threat is that we think that the TM system must co-exist with competitive market, and we will outweigh the market's needs with

naked licensing and assignment in gross: dawn donut

allows the company to use the donut name but doesn't really look at what the company is doing with the name.
what's the TM problem? you're not policing your TM. TM is a signature of the quality of product. why do we regulate this?
TM is distinction between producer and product. allowing the licensing of a TM without quality control then

in what way could the licensor effect control over the product and business?
the licensor must have both the right and have done something that shows attempt to police the quality of the product. it can't be a sham.

if we don't want the court to force companies to follow judicially formed standards, then what do we want?
- the market to regulate

the problem of the TM owner exiting the marketplace:

functionality: trafFix devices.
question of whether a TM exists at all. TraFix is sued by marketing displays for misappropriating its trade dress. the springs created by marketing displays may not be necessary.
two issues:
1. back-door patent. we as the public would be getting cheated because you had a patent lasting 20 years, and now you want a TM, which would disserve the public because

if trafFix must use 4 springs for hwat can be accomplished with 2, then their product is more expensive and its an expense that has nothing to do with "good will" or anything "necessary for the market". this is a functional feature, regardless of whether there is secondary meaning. why? because TM would create a mucky infraction on the patent system here. we want to prevent TM law from being a means of restricting trade in a way that diminishes competition, and allows producers to compete for reputation. we don't want the competition over reputation to become a vehicle for monopolization.

mattel v. mca records
majority says that this is a ridiculous song and the doll, barbie the word, has TM. but
there can be social contests over the meaning of a term, even a TM. what would happen if there wasn't this type of defense, and mattel didn't like what you had said about their company? if you're using the TM just as another means to infringement, but you

nadel v. play by play.
nadel doesn't tell play by play that you can get the idea that they disclose anywhere. why should they be allowed to do that? because

desny v. wilder
case arises before 1976 copyright act. after the act, the copyright of a written work would be preemptive. transferrence of creative ideas is being driven into the copyright law area. desny made a pitch to billy wilder and then ace in the hole is made. his claim is a contract claim, that the secretary implied that the idea would only be used if desny was paid.

economy of getting information.

intellectual property law is in essence a chance to find and disseminate information in a way that is efficient and fair to extent possible. by keeping something secret, you may lose rights and be precluded from using the information in the future. there are tremendous pressures towards institutionalizing creative effort and information. and to an extent, fairness falls to the wayside.

we discussed fair use of intellectual property, personhood interests of investment, and moral interests.


source-identifiers: if you're the only person using a product for 20 years then we 


2.

what i