Balkinization on the BongHits 4 Jesus decision:
“Roberts’ opinion creates a new rule allowing schools to ban student advocacy of illegal drug use– but this rule would apparently not extend to student advocacy of changing the drug laws. (Which raises the obvious question: How can we tell whether “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is advocacy of illegality, political advocacy of drug liberalization, or just a joke?”
There is a brouhaha going on about a docudrama regarding 9/11, that will be aired by ABC (owned by Disney). I guess this ‘logo’ is a pretty good illustration of the fact the law does not protect against all forms of tarnishment. The logo was an illustration to editorial content from the Eschaton blog, discussing ABC’s actions.
Questions for discussion:
Can NBC use the ‘willful deception’ logo to refer to ABC in its advertisements?
Can someone film a movie about the life of Walt Disney entitled ‘Willful Deception’ and use this logo?
WSJ law Blog on band that releases the song “Our Lawyer Made Us Change The Name Of This Song So We Wouldn’t Get Sued“, orignally titled “My Name Is David Ruffin And These Are The Temptations.”
The Trademark Blog was a signatory on a friend of the court brief in Freecycle v. Oey. The case involved two problematic points – a finding that talking about a trademark (without more) might constitute trademark infringement, and an order enjoinging defendant from making any remark that might disparage plaintiff’s trademark. Details at the Volokh Conspiracy and links to the relevant papers here.