Archive | December 2011

Kardashian Sister’s Lash Out

By: Alison Parker

The latest Kardashian drama actually doesn’t involve Kris Humphries or Khloe assaulting a transgender woman, but it involves something the sisters are adored for–their eyelashes.

The sisters are threatening legal action against Sarah Ehrlich, the maker of an eyelash elongation product, because she has filed a petition to trademark the name “KardashianLash.” Apparently Ms. Ehrlich spoke to TMZ and told them that she wanted to use KardashianLash to help raise money to send Honduran orphans to cosmetology school and that she didn’t think the Kardashian sisters would mind. And not only do the Kardashian’s mind, they claim that she is infringing on their trademark and they will do whatever it takes to get her to stop.

Read More…

Limits on IP Protection: Copyright Misuse

By Jaiana Casanova

Reviewed by Kyu Hee Chu

As we all know, the purpose of Intellectual Property protection is to grant exclusive rights over certain assets, such as music, books, inventions, among others; giving the owners monopoly over the assets and the opportunity to capitalize on them for a specific period of time. After this time has passed, the asset becomes part of public domain. This happens specifically with Patents and Copyrights.

Read More…

J.Lo’s Fiat Fiasco

By Alison Parker

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams

J.Lo’s new commercial for Fiat automobiles features her driving around the Bronx, her hometown, in a white Fiat 500. There has been a bit of controversy surrounding the commercial because it turns out that the Bronx scenes were shot using a body double and the scenes with J.Lo were shot in Los Angeles. This filming tactic seemed a bit ironic because the theme of the commercial is that the Bronx is her “world” and she lists all the reasons this place “inspires” her.

But that wasn’t the only controversy surrounding the video. Graffiti artist group Tats Cru sued Fiat for the unauthorized use of their “I [heart] Bronx” mural which appears in the video. Fiat quickly settled the dispute with the group for an undisclosed amount.

Read More…

Creating the Pay-Per-Mile High Club

By Gabriella Ripoll

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams

Can airplanes become bastions of airporn?  Sexual speech, even speech short of obscenity, has not been held particularly dear by the Supreme Court in their First Amendment jurisprudence, with zoning regulations as to pornographic theaters and laws banning nude dancing both being held to be within Constitutional rights. E.g. Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000). So what legislation might airlines expect in response to the development of in-flight pornography on demand for fliers? Austin Considine, “Pornography on Airplanes, Where You Can’t Look Away,” NYTimes, Nov. 18 2011,

Read More…

Tootsie Roll v. Footzyrolls

By Maria Cheung

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams

The Chicago based candy giant Tootsie Roll Industries (“Tootsie”) is suing Rollashoe, a small footwear company that makes rollable ballet slippers, for trademark infringement. According to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Illinois, Rollashoe whose shoes are marketed under the name Footzyrolls, is infringing on the brand name of Tootsie Roll.


Read More…