Select Page

Trademark
Temple University School of Law
Casey, Kevin R.

Trademarks (Casey)
OUTLINE – Fall 2007
 
Introduction to Unfair Competition: Misappropriation
1-25, 729-4
34-39 (§1125), 944 (§1), 958 (§38)
Trademark Act (p1-54) – Lantam – Senator Lantam
 
Dynamic Nature
worry more about consumer then in past
cost benefit analysis, increasing role of econ
internet
 
The Schoolmaster’s Case p5
new school came in and gave cheaper rate
argue- permission to be only school – artificial barrier – franchise
benefiting public –quality, cheaper, choice
Note: bad motive found actionable
Tuttle v. Buck p7
Barber entered market to harm other barber
Balance free competition with public interest
Note 2. Motives of the actor – requiring both a malicious motive and intention on the part of the actor to terminate the business after the infliction of harm, but this doesn’t apply if there is competitive interests
Liability determined by business methods, not motivation
Price v. Sorrel p13
Lawyer sent letter back to debt collector questioning reputation
Price had to incur expenses to show, Sorrell not liable
Showing P’s performance of contract made more expensive or burdensome by interference -> too speculative, wanted actual breach – intentional interference with performance of contract by third person
Intentional interference with another’s performance of his own contract – by other party
Competition inflicts burdens on competitors. The pursuit of conflicting economic interests is the essence of free enterprise. Extending protection from competition, the essence of free enterprise. Extending protection from competition, under the guise of actionable tort, works to our economic disadvantage.
This case advances appellant’s request to expand the scope of liability to include damage recovery from increase in burden of performance of an existing contract-activity which does not cause a contract to be breached or result in a failure to enter into a contract. Any adverse activity can “cause an increased cost in performance.”
Note 2: intentional b

ce v. Associated Press p 729
INS took news stories from AP
Three ways
1.      bribe employees
2.      induce AP members
3.      copying news form early editions
issue: whether defendant may lawfully be restrained from appropriating news taken from bulletins issued by complainant or any of its members, or from newspapers published by them, for the purpose of selling it to defendant’s clients
question: whether defendant’s admitted course of conduct is appropriating for commercial use matter taken from bulletins or early editions of AP constitutes unfair competition in trade
the value of news – not in keeping secret but spread while fresh
unfair competition must be determined with particular reference to the character and circumstances of the business
news matter is regarded as quasi property