This case involves a dog toy that copies jack daniels trademark and associates its whiskey. After a fourday trial the District Court found infringeme and delusion. They erroneously reversed the holdings. As to infringent the circuit didnt find the likelihood of confusion. It instead reversed by applying an exception to the act that the Second Circuit in rogers versus grimaldi invented. Under rogers inexpressive work is allowed to confuse asong as the use is relevant and not exicly misleading. But the act has no exception for expressive works. Itar using marks for any goods when liky to cause confusion as to sponsorship or approval. Arstic element has nothing to do with confusion and both plit and explicit uses c confuse. Nodoes constitutional avoidance justi rogers. Rogers doesnt possibly construe any text a there are no first endment issue as to avoid. A trademark Search Engine Property Rights that necessarily stct speech to protect investntn goodwill and event consumer confusion. And
Happening, but the fact is hes been a very good secretary of labor. What happened 12 or 15 years ago with respect to when he was a u. S. Attorney, i think in miami is it miami . Yes. You know, if you go back and look at everybody elses decisions, whether its a u. S. Attorney or an assistant u. S. Attorney or a judge, you go back 12, 15 years ago or 20 years ago and look at their past decisions, i would think you would probably find that they wish they maybe did it a different way. I do hear that there were a lot of people involved in that decision, not just him. I can only say this from what i know and what i do know is that hes been a great really great secretary of labor. The rest of it we will have to look at. We will have to look at it very carefully. But you are talking about a long time ago and, again, it was a decision made, i think, no the by him but by a lot of people. So were going to look at it very carefully. We will be looking at that very carefully. Now House Speaker nanc