Issue 8

Enforcement Costs and Trademark Puzzles

The standard account holds that trademark law, at its core, aims to protect consumers from deceptive and confusing uses of source-identifying marks. However, there is a problem with the standard account. It cannot explain a number of important trademark doctrines, many of which, like the protection accorded trade dress, have expanded the scope of trademark rights in recent years. Some critics argue that these puzzling doctrines reflect a radical shift away from the standard account and toward a new property theory of trademark law that focuses not so much on the quality of information available to consumers as on the seller’s ability to appropriate the full commercial value of its mark. 

This Article offers a different, and less alarming, explanation for many of the puzzling doctrines, one that does not require a radical departure from the standard account. This alternative explanation focuses on the enforcement costs of implementing law based on the standard account. Enforcement costs include the administrative costs of adjudicating trademark lawsuits and the error costs of over- and under-enforcing trademark rights. For a number of reasons, trademark law generates high enforcement costs, and many of the puzzling features of trademark doctrine can be understood as legal tools to manage these high costs. In particular, courts adopt general rules or standards that protect trademarks more broadly than the standard account’s substantive policies support, but those rules and standards can be justified by the administrative and error costs they save. In the end, the Article uses the enforcement cost approach to suggest two reforms to trademark law—the broader acceptance of disclaimers especially in merchandising rights cases, and the abolition of trade dress protection.

Virtual Liberty: Freedom to Design and Freedom to Play in Virtual Worlds

Regulation of virtual worlds has become an important issue in cyberspace law as more and more people spend increasing amounts of their lives in these spaces. This Article discusses the basic questions of freedom and regulation in virtual environments. 

There are three kinds of freedom in virtual worlds. The first is the freedom of the players to participate in the virtual world through their in-game representations, or avatars. This is the freedom to play. The second is the freedom of the game designer to plan, construct, and maintain the virtual world. This is the freedom to design. A third is the collective right of the designers and players to build and enhance the game space together. This is the freedom to design together. 

These rights overlap in important respects with the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, expression and association. Virtually all activity in virtual worlds must begin as some form of expression, and therefore virtually all forms of legally redressable injury in virtual worlds will be some form of communications tort. However, the law of the First Amendment, as it currently exists, does not adequately protect many important features of the rights to design and play. 

Many virtual spaces are rapidly becoming sites of real world and virtual world commerce. In the future game designers will likely attempt to invoke the First Amendment to avoid regulation of their business practices. However, game designers will lose First Amendment protection to the extent that they encourage real-world commodification of virtual items. The Article concludes by discussing different models of regulation of virtual worlds, including the model of consumer protection, the virtual world as company town, and virtual worlds as places of public accommodation.

Better a Catholic Than a Communist

In 1948, the Supreme Court in McCollum v. Board of Education declared a “released time” program for religious instruction in the Champaign, Illinois, public schools unconstitutional. Four years later in Zorach v. Clauson, the Court upheld an almost identical program in the New York City public schools. The Court distinguished the two programs on the grounds that the instruction in Champaign occurred in the school building, while the instruction in New York occurred off school grounds.

It is clear this factual distinction was persuasive to at least one justice, yet Justice Douglas inexplicably included in his opinion for the Court another justification for finding the New York plan constitutional. He wrote that Americans “are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

This Note offers an explanation for Justice Douglas’s appeal to Americans as a religious people and contends that the argument was persuasive to the majority, save for Justice Burton. It argues that increasing post-war anti-Catholicism and the Court’s decision in Everson created a climate in 1948 where the country was concerned with a growing Catholic influence in the public schools. Following Everson, McCollum provided the Court with an opportunity to draw a line and establish Mr. Jefferson’s high wall, so much discussed in Everson, between the church and state sponsored education. 

Following McCollum, however, the country’s concern shifted to Communism. With this shift, the country’s perception of “released time” public education changed. Instead of viewing these programs as opportunities for Catholic influence in the public schools, the country viewed public religious education as an opportunity to oppose the spread of “Godless Communism,” and opposition to “released time” education was characterized as support for totalitarianism.
This Note posits that Justice Douglas’s appeal to the religious character of America reflected the changed historical context from McCollum to Zorach, namely, that by 1952 it was better to be a Catholic than a Communist.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.