4328 research outputs found
Sort by
Who Will Protect the Consumers of Trademarked Goods?
Get PDFFederal and state law recognizes multiple forms of intellectual property, including patents,1 copyrights,2 trademarks,3 and trade secrets.4 Alleged violations of patents and copyrights are required by statute to be litigated in the federal courts.5 Trademark rights can arise under the Federal Lanham Act6 or state law.7 Trademark infringement can be litigated in state or federal courts.8 Trade secrets arising under state statutes are litigated in state courts unless diversity jurisdiction exists and is pled.9
Infringement of intellectual property in the case of patents arises when a patented invention is used, manufactured or imported into the United States without authority of the patentee.10 Copyright infringement results when any of the exclusive rights granted to a copyright owner under 17 U.S.C. §106 are violated.11 Trademark infringement results when a mark is used by a junior user in a manner that causes a likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers, and potential consumers, with the senior user’s mark as to source, connection, sponsorship, approval or affiliation.1
A Middle Temperature Between the Two : Exploring Intermediate Remedies for the Failure to Comply With Maryland\u27s Eyewitness Identification Statute
Get PDFThis article addresses what remedies should be available to a criminal defendant in Maryland who has been identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements. Part II of this article provides an overview of the present due process test for evaluating the admissibility of extrajudicial eyewitness identifications, the present Maryland iteration of that test, and alternatives to that approach that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Part III reviews recent legislative reforms to extrajudicial identification procedures, which are required in Maryland as of January 1, 2016. Section IV.A of this article argues why a criminal defendant who has been identified in an extrajudicial procedure that does not comply with that legislative mandate should be afforded remedies short of suppression as a way to induce compliance with the legislative mandate and to better avoid wrongful conviction and the dire societal harms which occur when the true culprit is left free to re-offend. Section IV.B of this article provides an overview of the remedies a criminal defendant should be entitled to receive if that defendant shows that he or she was identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements
Recent Development: Smallwood v. State: A Writ of Actual Innocence Is Not Available To Convicted Defendants Who Are Guilty Of Their Crime, Even If They Are Deemed Not Criminally Responsible
Get PDFThe Court of Appeals of Maryland held that convicted defendants must allege that they did not actually commit the crime resulting in their conviction to be eligible to petition for a writ of actual innocence under section 8-301 of Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code. Smallwood v. State, 451 Md. 290, 323, 152 A.3d 776, 795 (2017). Additionally, the court ruled that a claim of not criminally responsible is not equivalent to an assertion of actual innocence as required by the court\u27s interpretation of the actual innocence statute. Id.
Dameron Smallwood ( Smallwood ) was physically and verbally abused by his mother throughout his youth. In mid-October 1984, Smallwood was suspended from school for talking back to a teacher. Enraged, Smallwood\u27s mother locked him in the house for several days. On October 22, 1984, Smallwood\u27s mother finally let him leave the house, at which point he went to visit an apartment complex where they had previously lived. He knocked on the door of Madge K. Gibson ( Gibson ), a stranger to Smallwood, and claimed to be delivering a package that required Gibson\u27s signature. When Gibson opened the door, Smallwood stabbed her ten times, subsequently causing her death
Privacy, Poverty, and Big Data: A Matrix of Vulnerabilities for Poor Americans
Get PDFThis Article examines the matrix of vulnerabilities that low-income people face as a result of the collection and aggregation of big data and the application of predictive analytics. On one hand, big data systems could reverse growing economic inequality by expanding access to opportunities for low-income people. On the other hand, big data could widen economic gaps by making it possible to prey on low-income people or to exclude them from opportunities due to biases entrenched in algorithmic decision-making tools. New kinds of “networked privacy” harms, in which users are simultaneously held liable for their own behavior and the actions of those in their networks, may have particularly negative impacts on the poor. This Article reports on original empirical findings from a large, nationally-representative telephone survey with an oversample of low-income American adults, and highlights how these patterns make particular groups of low-status Internet users uniquely vulnerable to various forms of surveillance and networked privacy-related problems. In particular, a greater reliance on mobile connectivity, combined with lower usage of privacy-enhancing strategies, may contribute to various privacy and security-related harms. The Article then discusses three scenarios in which big data—including data gathered from social media inputs—is being aggregated to make predictions about individual behavior: employment screening, access to higher education, and predictive policing. Analysis of the legal frameworks surrounding these case studies reveals a lack of legal protections to counter digital discrimination against low-income people. In light of these legal gaps, the Article assesses leading proposals for enhancing digital privacy through the lens of class vulnerability, including comprehensive consumer privacy legislation, digital literacy, notice and choice regimes, and due process approaches. As policymakers consider reforms, the Article urges greater attention to impacts on low-income persons and communities
Boggs v. Merideth And The Present And Future Laws And Regulations Of Drone Usage
Get PDFIn recent years, due to the emerging technology in the field of Unmanned Aviation Systems “Drones”, the laws of drones have come to the foreground of legal analysis. Since 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has set out various guidelines for numerous aspects of drone usage and ownership. The rules and guidelines for drones vary depending on whether the drone is being used for recreational use, or for commercial use. This article will focus on the laws and regulations associated with personal drone usage, and the legal impact of a recent federal case, Boggs v. Merideth
Unconventional Refugees
Get PDFRefugees are a flash point for political divisions in the United States and abroad. The enormous personal, moral, and legal challenges posed by the displacement of refugees around the world reveal the dire inadequacies of our current policies toward refugee protection. Children running to border agents at the U.S. southern border are treated as a security threat to be deterred, instead of a vulnerable population needing some level of protection. The numbers of people seeking safety in the United States, while not objectively high, places further strain on an already under-resourced and heavily burdened immigration system, which at the end of the day, offers only partial hope to some of those seeking safety. Simply put, our current laws are simply not designed to offer meaningful protection that fits the contours of new waves of forced migration. This Article breaks open a debate that has been caught between the binaries of protection versus deterrence, and instead asks what framework could effectively serve multiple goals, both short-term protection and long-term deterrence and public safety. To do this, it questions our exclusive focus on the protection afforded by the Refugee Convention, and considers what rights to protection might be owed to unconventional refugees
Another Look at the Need for Family Law Education Reform: One Law School\u27s Innovations
Get PDFThe pressing need to change family law education stems from increased numbers and types of family law matters before the courts, changing legal standards, and the evolution of family law practice. The Family Law Education Reform Project, the Families Matter Report, and the IAALS Family Bar Summit recommend that traditional family law education be supplemented to reflect the importance of a holistic blend of theory and practice. This involves expanding student clinical or experiential programs, incorporating interdisciplinary studies specific to the context of family law, and enhancing continuing legal education opportunities. As one law school example, the University of Baltimore School of Law has implemented many of these recommendations for students and practitioners
Trumping the Court
No full textPresident Donald J. Trump has named Judge Neil Gorsuch as his first Supreme Court nominee. Let the confirmation games begin!
Of course, the Supreme Court is a vital part of our government’s delicate balance of power. There is great anxiety created for some by the nomination of a known conservative who has issued opinions that are considered by liberal activists as out of the “mainstream.” President Trump did just as he promised during the campaign, to nominate a conservative judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia.
Judge Gorsuch has been part of judicial decisions such as favoring the religious rights of corporations in the Hobby-Lobby case. He also authored decisions that have been described as “anti-worker.” Members of the civil rights old guard like the Rev. Jesse Jackson recently voiced concerns that Gorsuch’s judicial approach would likely “constrict” traditional civil rights protections. I hope this is not the case