Re: Copyright for Venice

On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 09, 1999, Peter D. Junger <junger[_at_]samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 07 Aug 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Budweiser is the name of a Czech beer that is marketed throughout
> > > Europe and that predates the St. Louis variety. So they lost a
> > > priority race to someone who used the same mark first *for beer*.
> >
> > And the real Budweiser, unlike the American eau de New Jersey, is quite
> > a good bear. If trademark law were actually intended to protect the
> > consumer from fraud, the American stuff could not legally be sold
> > under the Budweiser name.
>
> Trademark law IS actually intended to protect the consumer from fraud,

Interesting. Does this extend to give the consumer a right to bring an action, or is consumer protection simply a factor to be considered in an action brought by the holder of the mark? In Canada, I believe the courts have expressly stated that trademark law is NOT intended to protect the consumer (in the context of pharmaceuticals). I'd be interested in reading up on this - could someone refer me to a leading US case where consumer protection was given weight by the court?

Thanks,

-cd

Cappone D'Angelo
<cappyd[_at_]uvic.ca> Received on Thu Aug 12 1999 - 06:05:54 GMT