Casebook snark.
Nov. 12th, 2007 01:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elwenSo the writers of my trademarks book (Trademarks and Unfair Competition: Law and Policy, by Dinwoodie and Janis, 2nd ed. 2007) had way too much fun writing it. Most of their fun comes in the form of insulting sports teams, which mostly goes over my head, but I seem to have hit upon a treasure trove of groan- and/or chuckle-inducing excerpts today.
[Possibly this is because I have been reading several "Notes and Comments" sections in a row with no cases in between, so it's as if I've read a week's worth of material actually written by the authors. (Usually, "Notes and Comments" come after you read a judicial opinion, to highlight the important parts or contrast the analysis with other cases. But the longer they are, the more they consist of "here is a list of 20 cases with five-word summaries of what they held", which is mind-numbing and unhelpful. Also unhelpful is when they ask a hypothetical question (like "what if the mark is translated into another language and used on the same goods?") and then say, "See [so-and-so case]." without a parenthetical, thus forcing you to look up the case yourself if you want the answer when it would have saved ink if they just gave it to you instead of citing the case, or have used minimally more ink if they just gave you the parenthetical. It's not like bare case citations mean more to law students than lay people. Even more annoyingly, sometimes the cited case doesn't answer the question but just discusses it, and then the issue bugs you forever. ...yeah. Obviously I have a lot of beef with casebook authors.)]
So here are some fun ones...
Fortunately, LSATs don't have an analogy section. Since most lawyers never took the GRE, I guess the authors must have been thinking of the SAT but blocked out the memory of such a test ever existing.
[OMG, I just snarked a textbook author's snarking of the Federal Circuit's snark. How awesome is that?]
See what I mean about sports teams? Sports teams seem to raise all sorts of exciting trademark issues like geographical scope and surrogate use. It even led John Glenn to propose the Sports Heritage Act while he was a senator, to help cities deal with their sports teams relocating to other cities.This spawned lots of "ZOMG, how could he even suggest that the Chicago Cubs would move away?!?!!!!one!!" from the authors. On second thought, I can't really outdo their actual words: "Before you read further, be warned that Senator Glenn makes a graphic reference to the prospect of the Chicago Cubs departing Chicago -- a proxpect that readers (and especially the co-authors of this casebook) may find highly disturbing." . . . yeeeeaaaah.
I guess I should mention at this point that about half of the hypos tend to use the profs' names as the people involved (as in, "Dinwoodie and Janis used to be members of the band Outrageous Wailing Funk Brothers," which is a close paraphrase of an actual hypo). I wonder how they can bear to actually teach out of this book themselves. If I were their student, I would be mortified on their behalf pretty much every day.
[The funk brothers hypo was pretty amusing in its own right, which is why I remembered it and even managed to dig up the page number (because I remembered that it had to do with abandonment and residual goodwill -- I'm not that pathetic). It went like this: "the band split up in 1989, vowing 'never to be seen on stage together again' and promising 'to give up the funk,' which may be understood to mean 'henceforth to lead respectable and mundane lives.'" I wonder if it was autobiographical?]
So does the fact that I've been able to remember and dig up all these examples of snark -- by linking them to the relevant legal topics -- mean that they actually have pedagogical value? Or does it mean that I'm being way too distracted by them? Can I sue when, during the exam, all I can remember is that the Federal Circuit writes LSAT questions and not that relatedness of goods is a relevant factor in assessing likelihood of confusion?
Well, in any event, I guess I should get back to actually finishing the reading assignment now. ._.
[Possibly this is because I have been reading several "Notes and Comments" sections in a row with no cases in between, so it's as if I've read a week's worth of material actually written by the authors. (Usually, "Notes and Comments" come after you read a judicial opinion, to highlight the important parts or contrast the analysis with other cases. But the longer they are, the more they consist of "here is a list of 20 cases with five-word summaries of what they held", which is mind-numbing and unhelpful. Also unhelpful is when they ask a hypothetical question (like "what if the mark is translated into another language and used on the same goods?") and then say, "See [so-and-so case]." without a parenthetical, thus forcing you to look up the case yourself if you want the answer when it would have saved ink if they just gave it to you instead of citing the case, or have used minimally more ink if they just gave you the parenthetical. It's not like bare case citations mean more to law students than lay people. Even more annoyingly, sometimes the cited case doesn't answer the question but just discusses it, and then the issue bugs you forever. ...yeah. Obviously I have a lot of beef with casebook authors.)]
So here are some fun ones...
Said the [Federal Circuit], "[T]he relationship between cooking classes and kitchen textiles is more akin to the relationship between restaurant services and beer," . . . which is the sort of thing we expect will show up some day as an LSAT question.
Fortunately, LSATs don't have an analogy section. Since most lawyers never took the GRE, I guess the authors must have been thinking of the SAT but blocked out the memory of such a test ever existing.
[OMG, I just snarked a textbook author's snarking of the Federal Circuit's snark. How awesome is that?]
[After talking about how British courts sometimes invoke the "moron in a hurry" standard as opposed to U.S. courts' "reasonably prudent purchaser" standard:] What if the evidence in a case shows that the products at issue (New York Yankees merchandise comes to our minds) really are purchased by morons in a hurry?
See what I mean about sports teams? Sports teams seem to raise all sorts of exciting trademark issues like geographical scope and surrogate use. It even led John Glenn to propose the Sports Heritage Act while he was a senator, to help cities deal with their sports teams relocating to other cities.
Among consumers who buy high-end champagnes and eat at fine restaurants (we're speaking, of course, about Professor Dinwoodie), VEUVE CLICQUOT is a well-recognized brand of champagne. However, among the less-cultured masses who drink root beer and consider Taco Bell to be an "ethnic" restaurant (we give you Professor Janis), VEUVE CLICQUOT is entirely unknown.
I guess I should mention at this point that about half of the hypos tend to use the profs' names as the people involved (as in, "Dinwoodie and Janis used to be members of the band Outrageous Wailing Funk Brothers," which is a close paraphrase of an actual hypo). I wonder how they can bear to actually teach out of this book themselves. If I were their student, I would be mortified on their behalf pretty much every day.
[The funk brothers hypo was pretty amusing in its own right, which is why I remembered it and even managed to dig up the page number (because I remembered that it had to do with abandonment and residual goodwill -- I'm not that pathetic). It went like this: "the band split up in 1989, vowing 'never to be seen on stage together again' and promising 'to give up the funk,' which may be understood to mean 'henceforth to lead respectable and mundane lives.'" I wonder if it was autobiographical?]
So does the fact that I've been able to remember and dig up all these examples of snark -- by linking them to the relevant legal topics -- mean that they actually have pedagogical value? Or does it mean that I'm being way too distracted by them? Can I sue when, during the exam, all I can remember is that the Federal Circuit writes LSAT questions and not that relatedness of goods is a relevant factor in assessing likelihood of confusion?
Well, in any event, I guess I should get back to actually finishing the reading assignment now. ._.
