Trademark abuse in the Context of Entertainment Media and Cyberspace, by Abusive trademark litigation and the shrinking doctrine of Consumer Confusio K. Greene The recent challenge to the extension of the copyright term was grounded in the notion that Congress was giving away benefits to IP owners, typically large corporate entities without any corresponding public benefit that underlies the constitutional authority for IP grants. The giant conglomerates of the copyright industry-companies like Time-Warner/AOL, Disney, and Viacom ultimately won the day before the U.S Supreme Court. Perhaps though, the seeds for an IP counter-expansion revolt to"just say"no"to knee-jerk expansions of IP law have been planted. For example,the Supreme Court has recently limited the rights of big corporations with famous trademarks of actual economic harm rather than a mere likelihood of dilution y guiring a showing to attack smaller companies under the theory of trademark dilution, re The expansion of trademark law and its use to silence dissent from corporate mega-companies poses as great, if not greater, threat to social discourse as does copyright extension and expansion. Trademark law blossomed in an environment of robber capitalism, and was designed to prevent acts of fraud such as removing from boxes the cereal of a competitor, placing the cereal in boxes with ones own mark, and passing it I Assistant Professor. Thomas Jefferson School of Law. j.D. Yale Law School 1989. This article was upported by a research grant from Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Thanks to Professors Susan lefenbrun, Arnold Rosenberg, Sandra Pierson and Aaron Schwabach for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article 2 See Eldred v. Ashcroft, S Ct., 65 U.S.P. Q 2d 1225(2003) S It has been noted that"no one writes to Congress protesting how copyright is being abused on the Net. no one holds demonstration. See The Cultural Anarchist vs the Hollywood Police State", Los Angeles Times Sept. 22(2002)(exploring views of Professor Lawrence Lessig on copyright extension case ge Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, No. 01-1015(2003)1 Abusive Trademark Litigation and the Shrinking Doctrine of Consumer Confusion —Trademark Abuse in the Context of Entertainment Media and Cyberspace, by K.J. Greene1 The recent challenge to the extension of the copyright term was grounded in the notion that Congress was giving away benefits to IP owners, typically large corporate entities without any corresponding public benefit that underlies the constitutional authority for IP grants. The giant conglomerates of the copyright industry—companies like Time-Warner/AOL, Disney, and Viacom ultimately won the day before the U.S. Supreme Court2 . Perhaps though, the seeds for an IP counter-expansion revolt to “just say ‘no’” to knee-jerk expansions of IP law have been planted.3 For example, the Supreme Court has recently limited the rights of big corporations with famous trademarks to attack smaller companies under the theory of trademark dilution, requiring a showing of actual economic harm rather than a mere likelihood of dilution.4 The expansion of trademark law and its use to silence dissent from corporate mega-companies poses as great, if not greater, threat to social discourse as does copyright extension and expansion. Trademark law blossomed in an environment of robber capitalism, and was designed to prevent acts of fraud such as removing from boxes the cereal of a competitor, placing the cereal in boxes with one’s own mark, and passing it 1 Assistant Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, J.D. Yale Law School 1989. This article was supported by a research grant from Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Thanks to Professors Susan Tiefenbrun, Arnold Rosenberg, Sandra Pierson and Aaron Schwabach for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. 2 See Eldred v. Ashcroft, ___S. Ct. ___, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225 (2003). 3 It has been noted that “no one writes to Congress protesting how copyright is being abused on the Net…[n]o one holds demonstration.” See The Cultural Anarchist vs. the Hollywood Police State”, Los Angeles Times Sept. 22 (2002)(exploring views of Professor Lawrence Lessig on copyright extension case). 4 See Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, No. 01-1015 (2003)