Abstract: A. LABELING FRAUD: THE FIRST BENCHMARK OF FDA REGULATION 125 B. DRUG SAFETY: THE SECOND BENCHMARK OF FDA REGULATION 127 C. SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS: THE THIRD BENCHMARK OF FDA REGULATION 129 D. FDA REGULATION OF NEW DRUG APPROVAL UNDER THE DRUG EFFICACY AMENDMENTS 133 E. FDA REGULATION OF GENERIC DRUG APPROVAL UNDER THE DRUG EFFICACY AMENDMENTS 137

Abstract: A. INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW 1254 1. Trademark Infringement 1255 2. Trademark Dilution 1255 3. Commercial Use 1256 4. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 1257 B. POLITICAL COMMENTARY AND PARODY SITES 1259 1. Broad Definition of Commercial Use 1260 2. Likelihood of Confusion: The Initial Interest Doctrine and the Parody Defense 1262 C. TRADITIONAL CONSUMER GRIPE SITES: SUCKS.COM ........ 1264 1. Narrowing the Definition of Commercial Use 1266 2. Likelihood of Confusion: A Step Away From Initial Interest Confusion 1268

Abstract: On October 1, 2003, Judge Colleen Koller-Kotellay issued a ruling finding there was insufficient evidence to decisively conclude that the name “Redskins” was disparaging to “American Indians” (Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 2003). This judgment overturned a 1999 United States Patent and Trademark Office decision that had revoked the National Football League’s Washington Redskins’ exclusive right to the use of the term “Redskins,” trademarked by the team in 1967. The 1999 Patent and Trademark Office decision did not prevent the Washington football club from using their six different registered trademarks, but removed their protection from competitors also using the registered trademarks. The pivotal issue, according to Koller-Kotellay, was the amount of time that had intervened between the granting of the trademark in 1967 and the plaintiff’s initial lawsuit in 1992. Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. raises many questions that will be the basis for the research: a) In light of Harjo, what is the legal threshold for determining legitimate contempt and/or disrepute? b) Under the Theory of Latches when is it too late to file a trademark infringement complaint? c) What are the stakes in this case, from both financial and policy perspectives? This paper investigates the legal, policy, and financial considerations surrounding the Harjo decision, and more generally, the use of trademarks to generate licensed revenues.

Abstract: This is a 2007 panel discussion at Fordham Law School on the law of geographical indications (GIs). The panelists – many of them skeptical of strong EU-style GI laws – were brought together by Professor Hugh Hansen of Fordham. The discussion may be of interest for historical reasons, as it occurred before significant developments like the GI provisions of the Canada-EU Trade Agreement and the 2015 Geneva Act revising the Lisbon Agreement (1958). Panelist Lynne Beresford passed away in June 2016 and the remaining panelists post this discussion in her memory.