Charlotte Intellectual Property Journal,Charlotte Intellectual Property Law Journal Christopher Ashiotes

Are brands untouchable? Do commercial enterprises have complete freedom to register and use any kind of trademark? Can public authorities prohibit the registration and use of signs under certain circumstances? This article tries to provide some answers to these questions. It does so by looking at several national and international provisions and case law regarding the bans on registration of disputable trademarks such as immoral or scandalous signs as well as at regulatory measures aimed at prohibiting or restricting the use of signs in connection with (what are increasingly considered) harmful products including alcohol, certain foodstuffs and tobacco (particular attention is devoted to plain packaging of cigarettes, health warnings and other packaging-related measures).

The broadcast television industry – built on the foundation of federal copyright protections – appears to be a never-ending, and ever increasing, revenue stream for America’s sports teams and leagues. However, an Internet television company, Aereo, might be the pin that pops the bubble. The online start-up, after multiple battles in various courts, is now the defendant in a case before the United States Supreme Court. If the Court decides to sanction Aereo’s streaming activities, then television will be forever changed and sports broadcasting will face terrible consequences.              This Article provides a succinct analysis of the copyright laws and case history relevant to the Aereo issue. Then, after a brief examination of the sports television industry and its unique copyright protections, this Article provides a novel and detailed breakdown of how Aereo’s Supreme Court success will be the catalyst for chaos in the business of sports broadcasting.

The doctrine of laches is an equitable defense used to prevent plaintiffs from delaying suits without good reason. Historically, this protection has come at the expense of copyright owners who believed their rights had extinguished. Copyright owners who did not bring suit within the Copyright Act’s federal limitation prescription had no recourse against this defense. The standard for applying the doctrine of laches was not consistently used throughout the courts therefore it led to forum shopping mostly in the Ninth Circuit. Without a clear cut rule in applying laches to federal statute of limitations, courts were in conflict. Congress was silent to laches and how they pertained to the federal statute of limitations because the statute does not explicitly abrogate the use of laches. Cases like Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., are the result of Congress’ silence.