Ch 5: Footnotes

“All of China”: 

International Trademark Association, www.INTA.org, last accessed October 13, 2015. “INTA members collectively contribute almost $12 trillion to global GDP annually. For comparison the 2013 GDP of the top three markets was 9.2 trillion (China), 17.9 trillion (Europe), and 16.7 trillion (U.S.).”

“A heavy hand”: 

INTA BRIEF, published by International Trademark Association: “INTA has been instrumental in making recommendations and providing assistance to legislators in connection with all major pieces of federal trademark legislation, including the Lanham Act in 1946 and the FTDA in 1995, as well as international trademark laws and treaties such as the Madrid Protocol and the Trademark Law Treaty. Most recently, INTA was requested, on several occasions, to testify before Congress in connection with the TDRA, which amended the FTDA as of October 6, 2006, and which is the subject of this brief.”

“Fear of the internet” images: 

World Trademark Review, Issue 69, 2017 “Since our investigation three years ago, the dark web has continued to grow rapidly. World Trademark Review returns to this hidden part of the Internet and discovers a place of turmoil and uncertainty which poses a greater danger to brands than ever before”

World Trademark Review, Margret Knitter, SKR, July 15, 2021, “The rise of social media and the development of influencer marketing requires the surveillance of social media and the Internet in general. Therefore, brand protection agencies not only have to keep an eye on trademark registers, but also on a vast number of other sources. It remains to be seen how the imminent Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act will affect the industry.”

“Small business killer,” 

Leah Chan Grinvald, “Shaming Trademark Bullies,” Wisconsin Law Review, No. 3, Vol 2011.

“This bullying is a serious concern as it has implications far beyond trademark law and impacts the U.S. economy and the freedom of cultural expression. One of the harms produced by bullying is that economic competition is impaired. In particular, small businesses and individuals are more adversely affected, as these victims do not have the wherewithal to fight legal battles.”

“Bullying changed to litigration tactics,”

United States Department of Commerce, REPORT TO CONGRESS, Trademark Litigation Tactics and Federal Government Services to Protect Trademarks and Prevent Counterfeiting, April 2011, 

“It is noted that in USPTO’s request for comments posted on October 6, 2010, the term “bullies” was used and described as “a trademark owner that uses its trademark rights to harass ad intimidate another business beyond what the law might be reasonably interpreted to allow.” The posting was later amended to remove the terminology “bullies” and “bullying,” as it was determined that it was more appropriate to use the language appearing in the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010; namely, “litigation tactics.”

See also: in the introduction the following correction was made to cross out “corporations attempting” and add “the purpose of which” “the extent to which small businesses may be harmed by litigation tactics by corporations attempting the purpose of which is to enforce trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights granted to the trademark owner”

“Mickey Mouse”: 

USPTO.gov, Trademark Search, “Mickey Mouse,” last accessed October 11, 2021

“Lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit,”

Rob Linden on camera interview with James Lantz, August 10, 2012, “Right after my name is lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit,” Rob said. “And obviously if you were a consumer you would think twice about hiring me.”

“Ended up losing $800,000”:

Carl Vennitti, “The Giant Killer,” 2013, published by Seaburn Publishing Corp.

“A thousand miles away”: 

See also, David Phelps, StarTribune, June 30, 2012, “For Small Businesses, Trademark Battles are Life or Death”

“Biggest brands on Earth”:

Gary Locke, Secretary of Commerce, United States Department of Commerce, REPORT TO CONGRESS, Trademark Litigation Tactics and Federal Government Services to Protect Trademarks and Prevent Counterfeiting, April 2011. “Trademarks add tremendous value to the U.S. economy. Nine of the top ten global brands in the world hail from the United States.”

“Leahy’s study metastasized”:

At least one scholar cried foul and pointed a finger at the large corporate rights-holders that INTA leads. Numerous people claimed small business participation was stifled, the survey defective, the statistics were stacked. TechDirt reported, “much of the ‘research’ for the report came from big trademark holders—who are often the biggest bullies—rather than the ‘victims’ of trademark bullying.

Scholars and experts heaped scorn on the results: “biased,” “whitewashed,” “waste of taxpayer money,”“...a worthless report.”

A respected trademark scholar (Eric Goldman) wrote: “Maybe we should say ‘thanks for nothing,’ because the report [Senator Leahy] got back from the Department of Commerce got totally coopted by the trademark owners constituency and thereby was rendered worthless. Useless. A complete whiff.”

He went on to write, “In response to this useless document, Senator Leahy ought to haul the report drafters before him, chew them out, and ask them to redo the study properly.”

Meanwhile, the drafters of the study—the Commerce Department and the USPTO—had “no comment” on the criticism. The headline in World Trademark Review read, “USPTO Silent as Attorneys Pour Scorn on Trademark Bullies Study.”

“Scorn on study”:

World Trademark Review, USPTO Silent As Attorneys Pour Scorn on Trademark Bullies Study, May 9, 2011.

“Thanks for nothing”:

Eric Goldman, Department of Commerce Releases Worthless Report on Trademark Bullying, Technology and Marketing Blog, April 29, 2011.

“We have Sen. Leahy to thank for ordering this report last year studying how trademark owners were over enforcing their rights against weak targets. Of course, Sen. Leahy parochially raised this issue only after one of his local constituents was targeted; but however he got there, at least he realized the importance of the issue. Unfortunately, maybe we should say “thanks for nothing,” because the report he got back from the Department of Commerce got totally coopted by the trademark owner constituency and thereby was rendered worthless. Useless. A complete whiff.”

“Donated over $700,000”: 

Federal Election Commission, www.FEC.gov, last accessed 08.31.2021, cross-referenced with INTA Membership Directory, 2014-2015.

Note: This informal investigation was made twice by the producer of this documentary and a freelance researcher. In each instance, the tally of money donated between 2010 to 2016 by INTA and a couple hundred of its membership to Senator Leahy’s campaign exceeded $700,000.

In the six years prior (2003 to 2009) INTA itself donated zero to Senator Leahy’s campaign; it is not known what amount, if any, its membership donated.