Jack Daniels Properties, the corporate owner of trademarks associated with Jack Daniels, a brand of whiskey, won a high profile intellectual property case this term. The case involved a dog toy in the shape of a bottle of whiskey, with markings that reference Jack Daniels in a way that ALSO references dog poop. For example, the pseudo-bottle bears a rhyming code name, "Bad Spaniels." Where a bottle of JD whiskey bears the familiar description "Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey" the dog-toy doppelganger says " The old No 2 on your Tennessee carpet." Whether you find punning poop jokes funny is a matter of taste. The "Bad Spaniels" decision is now a matter for the law books. The district court granted summary judgment to the dog-toy makers. The appeals court affirmed that judgment and JD appealed. The defenders of the brand won before SCOTUS, which offered its own reading of the law and remanded for further cons...
Posts
I'm continuing my list of most-important-decisions from the US Supreme Court, year by year. Today I'll cover the 80s. Again, each choice is extremely subjective. If you don't care about SCOTUS, you might at least enjoy the photo of Molly Ringwald. Proceeding.... 1980, Pruneyard Shopping v. Robins -- free speech, property rights, state sovereignty, shopping malls 1981, Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery -- bottle bills survive constitutional challenge 1982, Arizona v. Maricopa Cnty Medl Society -- antitrust price fixing, physicians 1983, INS v. Chadha -- separation of powers, legislative veto 1984, Chevron v. NRDC -- deference to administrative discretion 1985, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises -- "fair use" of copyrighted material 1986, Batson v. Kentucky -- jury composition, racial bias 1987, Edwards v. Aguillard -- creationism and establishment of religion 1988, Morrison v. Olson -- separation of powers & special prosecutors...
We move on now to the headline constitutional issues: the one-person one-vote rule; separation of powers; coerced speech in the labor union context. Last year at this time, I mentioned that the SCOTUS had agreed to hear Evenwel v. Abbott. This case gave the court a chance to clarify the meaning of "one person, one vote," where appellants asked it to reconstrue that as "one qualified potential voter, one vote." SCOTUS' answer: the appellant loses. The states may divide themselves into congressional districts on the basis of total population without inquiries into eligibility. They get to choose. The decision left open the possibility that some state may decide to re-work its district lines according to the number of eligible voters in each. If any state does so and that practice is challenged, only then will we get a more definitive word, I gather. This decision was unanimous. Thomas and Alito wrote concurring opinions. Thomas joined in Alit...
The Justices are back at work. There are a number of fascinating items in the pipeline. I'll mention in this entry just two that the Court has recently decided to hear: Bank Markazi v. Peterson, and FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n . Bank Markazi involves sanctions against Iran, and a blatant Congressional effort to interfere with ongoing litigation in the courts. The FERC case asks whether the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq ., gives that agency the authority to regulate the way that operators of wholesale-electricity markets match supply and demand in real time and through day-ahead markets. The above link will take you to the Solicitor General's petition for cert in the FERC case. In the sanctions matter it was the Iranian central bank that had to petition for cert. You'll find that petition here.
Another term of the U.S. Supreme Court has come and gone. This year, the one case that is THE ONE, destined for the history books, not just the law books, is clearly ... well, there are at least two, and they were both decided very near the end of the term. The court addressed the latest challenge to a pillar of Obamacare, and it offered constitutional protection to the institution of marriage between homosexuals. I'll discuss each of those opinions in the second part of this three-part review. Today, I'll say a few words about each of three second-tier decisions, so to speak. In increasing order of importance as I quite subjectively determine that, I've decided to include here Oneok v.Learjet (on preemption in the US energy markets); Brumfield v. Cain (on the death penalty and the mentally handicapped); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (separation of powers and recognition of the boundaries of foreign countries). They each raise questions foundational enough to make ...