Sarah Fackrell
@design-law.bsky.social
19K followers
4.2K following
9.7K posts
Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Tech. Design patent scholar. Currently writing about "Schedule A" litigation.
For more on #ScheduleA, see Part II(B) here: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/the-counterfeit-sham/
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Pinned
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
![The Eicher Motors Ltd. v. The Individuals, et al., opinion is also based almost exclusively on this faulty “scholarship.” The same Court also previously acknowledged that it would be inappropriate to base its decisions based on these articles. See Order, Fletcher. et al v. The P’ships, et al., No. 24-cv-00717 (N.D. Ill. Aug 7, 2024) (No. 40) (Kness, J.). See also United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 376 (2020) (“’[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government.’ …They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.’”). ↑](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hvwhptk4oerwsuzau66ikwfy/bafkreibfdxd5nimt6jfdqa2buwsgasjfk4mspplbeb3suecerm273nte7u@jpeg)
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
Reposted by Sarah Fackrell
![Fiction 11: Papers Criticizing Schedule A Cases are Based on Comprehensive Experience in Online Brand Protection, Studies and Research
Fact: Even though Schedule A lawsuits have been filed for fifteen years and are legally and procedurally sound (see above), a new trend for a few academics is to write papers criticizing them.[66] The papers are not based on any extensive experience in online brand protection, litigating Schedule A cases or comprehensive studies. Instead, the papers present a single negative viewpoint based on speculation and unsupported assumptions. The papers also cite only a handful of outlier cases while intentionally omitting and/or ignoring the cases cites above. It is also clear that the authors have a fundamental misunderstanding about the effectiveness and cost realities of other available online enforcement mechanisms. Papers about Schedule A cases, especially academic papers, can and should provide a balanced viewpoint and necessary context.[67] The authors of a recent paper have done just that.[68]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hvwhptk4oerwsuzau66ikwfy/bafkreigtnpfbzzfc4k6rbbn24ydulnwqpkb2xofrr7vt27hhrw3at76f7a@jpeg)