INTA press release here.

“. . . in concluding that Appellant ‘is not using Betty Boop as a trademark, but instead as a functional product’ . . . the majority erred by sua sponte reincarnating the outdated and much-critcized aesthetic functionality doctrine . . .” (page 7)

“. . . the majority erred in its dictum that, when a copyrighted work falls into the public domain, the owner of a trademark comprised of that work cannot assert trademark rights because that would prevent the work ‘from ever entering the public domain,'” (Id.)

INTAFleischerAVELA(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();