Explore the vast range of titles available.

When is a design just a design, and when is it a trademark? Over the last several decades, courts have developed a clear framework for evaluating the distinctiveness of certain unconventional marks, especially those typically conceived of as \"trade dress.\" The Supreme Court has drawn a line between product packaging, on the one hand, and product design, on the other. Packaging features are treated just like any other potential trademark in the sense that we protect them automatically if they are inherently distinctive, and we require evidence of secondary meaning if they aren't. Product design is different. Like color, it is incapable of being inherently distinctive and can be protected only when it has acquired secondary meaning. There's just one problem with this fundamental rule: It isn't true. Or at least, it isn't the whole truth. As we show in this article, sometimes courts and the Trademark Office don't recognize features like logos as being part of a product's design, and as a result, they ignore the categorization system and evaluate the claimed features for inherent distinctiveness. Something similar happens with certain product packaging features, except in reverse. In other words, courts are engaged in a previously unrecognized \"step zero\" before they classify trade dress features and apply the normal rules of distinctiveness for product packaging and product configuration. In that largely implicit step, courts and trademark examiners make their own judgments about the role of that feature, and particularly whether they believe consumers are likely to regard those features as trademarks. While courts and the Trademark Office have been slow to articulate rules for step zero - or even to acknowledge that it exists - we show in this article that in practice they are recognizing what we call \"trademark spaces\": locations that consumers are likely to assume are serving as trademarks. When they apply this implicit step zero, courts and the Trademark Office frequently treat the location of a claimed feature on the product or package as an important determinant of trademark status. As we describe in detail, some locations are special. Use in those spaces goes a long way to convincing a court or trademark examiner that the design is a trademark. The recognition of trademark spaces offers a way to rationalize the step zero analysis and to begin thinking more systematically about the relationship between distinctiveness and use as a mark. Courts can and should evaluate use in a trademark space as part of the broader step zero inquiry. But they should do so explicitly and based on evidence, not instinct. Bringing step zero out into the open will help us better understand when and why consumers react to certain designs as trademarks. And it will pave the way for us to reject claims to own things that either do not or should not function as trademarks.

Students’ early morning decisions about what to wear to school have led many school districts into legal issues and policy challenges. Confederate belt buckles, exposed bellies, sagging pants, political statements, and social commentary have all been banned from schools, and these bans have often resulted in litigation by students who claim their constitutional right to free speech has been violated. Student Dress Codes and the First Amendment: Legal Challenges and Policy Issues explores the legal issues that arise when a school prohibits various types of student attire. Through an analysis of major Supreme and federal court cases, this volume examines conflicts that arise when administrators juggle a student’s right to free speech with the need to maintain an environment conducive to learning.

Varying enforcement of school hair policies and other grooming regulations against students has contributed, at least in part, to disparate exclusion of Black students from classroom and extracurricular activities. The consequences arising out of exclusion from school activities can be severe, ranging from lower academic performance to early involvement with the criminal justice system. Generally, disputes around such policies have been settled privately, thus giving no guidance to other students affected and offering no uniform solu-tion. This Note argues that although not ideally suited to litigation, the issue of discriminatory enforcement of school hair policies is ripe for administrative and legislative action. By taking advantage of the complaint process within the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education, students and families can spur the agency to investigate individual schools or even prompt broader regulatory reform. Additionally, this Note proposes that legislation designed to either recreate a private right of action to enforce regulations promulgated under Title VI, or one specifically outlawing discrimination based on hair texture or style will similarly offer a uniform solution.

The Challenges of Mandating School Uniforms in the Public Schools: Free Speech, Research, and Policy explores the policy rationale, the constitutional rights of students, and the research on the impact of school uniforms.

Over the past decade, the uncertainty of fashion's status as protectable intellectual property has generated enormous controversy. It is no wonder: in 2011, apparel sales in the United States amounted to almost two hundred billion dollars; handbag sales alone accounted for eight billion dollars that year and are continuing to balloon at ten percent annually. This trend is also global. Fashion has become one of the largest and most dynamic industries in the world. Global fashion revenue totals one trillion dollars per year, representing four percent of global GDP. Unsurprisingly, then, the question of intellectual property protection for fashion design has commanded attention from designers, litigators, policymakers, and consumers. Nevertheless, growth in the industry's economic importance and in the ease of pirating fashion designs have both outpaced legal change.