New Article by Prof. Calboli Explores Tension Between Free Trade and Trademark Rights

Irene Calboli grapples with a longstanding controversy over the “first sale rule” in trademark law in her new article, “Market Integration and (the Limits of) the First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law,” 51 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1241 (2011).  As she explains,

Trademark law grants trademark owners the right to prevent third parties from using identical or similar signs to identify confusingly similar products in the market. Nevertheless, once a trademark owner has introduced into the market a product, or a batch of products, these rights are considered exhausted with respect to those products, and the trademark owner can no longer rely on trademark rights to control the products‘ future circulation. . . . [F]ierce disputes have characterized the application of this principle in the context of international trade with respect to the parallel imports of gray market goods—i.e., genuine (originally manufactured) products, which are imported into a country from unauthorized third party importers after their first authorized sale by trademark owners in another part of the world.

In the article, Irene considers how the “first sale” issue has been addressed in North American and European trade law.  The abstract to her paper appears after the jump.

Continue ReadingNew Article by Prof. Calboli Explores Tension Between Free Trade and Trademark Rights

A Tale of Three States, Part One

In this post from a few months ago, I offered a preliminary assessment of the wide disparity in incarceration rates between Wisconsin and Minnesota.  I had just enough data then to raise some interesting questions.  Now, with the capable help of a research assistant, Garrett Soberalski, I’ve assembled a much more extensive body of data, which I expect to analyze in a series of posts.  Among other things, I thought it would be helpful to add a third state to the mix, so Indiana will also be included in the comparison.  Another medium-sized midwestern state, Indiana has incarceration numbers that are even higher than Wisconsin’s.

In this initial post, though, I will focus just on the basics of the Wisconsin-Minnesota comparison.

So, here’s the essential story (as detailed in the chart that appears after the jump): Wisconsin incarcerates many more people than Minnesota, while Minnesota puts many more individuals on probation.  The two states have about equal levels of crime, and Minnesota actually has a larger percentage of its population under supervision (that is, either incarcerated or on probation or parole release).  However, because incarceration is so much more expensive than community supervision, Minnesota’s corrections budget is much smaller than Wisconsin’s (about $99 per resident, versus Wisconsin’s $234 per resident).  Given the similarity of the two states’ crime rates, it appears that Minnesota’s probation-based strategy is delivering more bang for the buck than Wisconsin’s.

Continue ReadingA Tale of Three States, Part One

Why the Permit Policies in the U.S. Capitol Are Irrelevant

Confusion continues over the new Department of Administration rules announced December 1 which require advance permits for many demonstrations held within the Wisconsin State Capitol. Among the more controversial aspects of the policy are its applicability to small groups of protestors and the discretion granted to the State Capitol police to require permit seekers to pay security costs in advance. I have already written about the manner in which this policy goes too far, and how it impermissibly infringes upon the First Amendment rights of protestors.

One response to the criticism of the new DOA policy has been to compare the DOA policy to the rules governing demonstrations at the United States Capitol building. At first reading, it appears that protestors are completely banned from the United States Capitol building under guidelines issued by the United States Capitol Police. Those guidelines state that “demonstration activity is prohibited and will not be permitted inside any Capitol buildings.” You can read the U.S. Capitol Police policy here.

At a recent forum to discuss the new DOA policy, one participant asked, if the U.S. Capitol Police can ban demonstrations altogether within their building, why can’t the Department of Administration impose restrictions in the State Capitol building that are something less than a complete ban?  The simple answer to this question is that the U.S. Capitol building is not considered a public forum, while the Wisconsin State Capitol is.

Continue ReadingWhy the Permit Policies in the U.S. Capitol Are Irrelevant
Newer Posts
Older Posts