Trademark’s Judicial De-Evolution: Why Courts Get Trademark Cases Wrong Repeatedly

Trademark’s Judicial De-Evolution: Why Courts Get Trademark Cases Wrong Repeatedly

Trademark law has de-evolved. It has transitioned from an efficient mechanism for ensuring competition into an inefficient regime for capturing economic rents. In this Article, I focus on the role that party self-interest has played in biasing the evolution of trademark law. This self-interest tends to lead parties to (1) challenge efficient legal rules and seek to replace them with inefficient, anticompetitive rules, and (2) accede to inefficient, anticompetitive rules once they are in place. Almost by definition, when a rule of trademark law promotes competition, it reduces the market surplus or rents that current producers capture. As a result, parties will seldom spend resources either to defend an efficient trademark rule or to challenge an inefficient trademark rule in the hope of replacing it with a more efficient rule. Instead, inefficient trademark rules offer a party, usually the trademark owner, the opportunity to capture rents. As a result, at least one party will have a correspondingly strong interest in defending such inefficient trademark rules or, if necessary, challenging efficient trademark rules in the hope of replacing them with inefficient trademark rules.

The net result has been something of a perfect storm for trademark law. Efficient legal rules are repeatedly challenged until they are replaced with inefficient legal rules, at which point no one challenges them. The entirely predictable result of this process is exactly what scholars have observed: courts have re-written trademark law so that it protects far too much and far too broadly. Rather than ensure competition, it serves to restrict competition and to maximize the profits of trademark owners. Rather than promote consumer welfare, it has become a form of corporate welfare.

We cannot, however, fix the problems with trademark law through substantive trademark doctrine. Substantive reform, even radical substantive reform, would simply provide a new starting point from which inefficient common law evolution would again proceed. To fix the ongoing de-evolution of trademark law, we need to change the process of trademark litigation to ensure, first, that parties have an adequate incentive to defend and fight for efficient legal rules, and second, that courts have the information they need to recognize the efficient legal rule and render judgment accordingly. In this Article, I identify and evaluate several possible mechanisms for solving trademark’s ongoing common law de-evolution.


More in this Issue

The Changemaker Lawyer: Innovating the Legal Profession for Social Change

As lawyers today confront existential challenges to their profession, from globalization to technological change, they face demands to innovate. In a world of rapid change, individuals must have certain skills to succeed; they must be “changemakers.” Changemakers are individuals who harness innovation to solve social challenges, a notion arising from the global movement of social […]

Presidential Obstruction of Justice

Federal obstruction of justice statutes bar anyone from interfering with official legal proceedings based on a “corrupt” motive. But what about the president of the United States? The president is vested with “executive power” which includes the power to control federal law enforcement. A possible view is that the statutes do not apply to the […]

Patriotic Philanthropy? Financing the State with Gifts to Government

This Article offers a positive and normative account of an important and growing trend: wealthy individuals are increasingly giving their money to the government to encourage the government to fund particular projects that these individuals want the government to pursue. Such gifts—dubbed “patriotic philanthropy” by one prominent donor—raise fundamental questions about the role that private […]

Debunking Pre-Arrest Incident Searches

The “search incident to arrest” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement permits officers to search a suspect upon making an arrest. It is the most commonly invoked justification for unconsented-to searches; indeed, incident searches far exceed searches conducted with a warrant. This seemingly straightforward exception has wilted in recent years as courts have done […]

Procedural Experimentation and National Security in the Courts

In the last fifteen years, individuals have brought hundreds of cases challenging government national security practices for violating human rights or civil liberties. Courts have reviewed relatively few of these cases on the merits, often deferring broadly to the executive branch on the grounds that they lack expertise, political accountability, or the ability to protect […]