others, has the capacity to bring about several bad results such as the depletion of the public domain,and the decrease of the marketplace of ideas, and the debasement of cardinal trademark principles based on preventing consumer confusion. Others have made that case well. Others have also explicated how trademark law has undergone a paradigm shift away from protecting consumer interests toward protecting trademark owner interests. A modest insight of this paper is that trademark cases in cyberspace and entertainment make no sense under any of the traditional theories of IP or trademark specific theories, save one: personality interests. The cases also indicate that the interests of trademark owners and the public interest does not necessarily coincide assuming the public interest subsists in an expansive public domain The entertainment media and cyberspace cases validate in dramatic fashion the notion that as trademark law moves away from confusion theory, the potential for abusive, antisocial trademark litigation which has a chilling effect on the expression of Mattel Corporation, owner of Barbie, is another company that arguably brings lawsuits that impinge on expressive conduct and the public domain, See Lisa Bannon, Barrister Barbie? Mattel Plays Rough, www.s-t.com/dailv/01-98/01-09-98/b021i044.htm(jan.1,1998)(detail sive lawsuits and threats to ue alleged infringers by Mattel regarding its"Barbie " mark) A leading jurist, for example, has cogently argued elsewhere that"[o]verprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. [c]reativity is impossible without a rich public domain. White v Samsung Electronics America, Inc, 989 F 2d 1512,(9 Cir. 1993)(Kozinski, J, dissenting) 24 See Alison P. Howard, A Fistful of Lawsuits: The Press, the First Amendment, and Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 88 CALIF. L. REV. 127(2000)(lawsuits by plaintiffs seeking to avoid obstacles in defamation claims by using trademark law "disregards both the First Amendment 's goal of promoting the free exchange of ideas and section 43(a)'s goal of reducing consumer confusion rather than protecting plaintiffs reputations") See Kenneth L Port, The Congressional Expansion of American Trademark Law: A Civil Law System in the Making, 35 WAKE FOREST L REV.827, 828-29(2000) 26 See BEVERLY W. PATTISHALL, DAVID C. HILLIARD JOSEPH NYE WELCH, I1, 9 TRADEMARKS& UNFAIR COMPETITION (3Ed. 1998):(remarking that"[t ]he public interest against deception is necessarily a fundamental consideration in trade identity unfair competition cases, yet the treatment of that interest is ordinarily residual to what is primarily a private complaint.6 others,22 has the capacity to bring about several bad results such as the depletion of the public domain,23 and the decrease of the marketplace of ideas,24 and the debasement of cardinal trademark principles based on preventing consumer confusion. Others have made that case well. Others have also explicated how trademark law has undergone a paradigm shift away from protecting consumer interests toward protecting trademark owner interests.25 A modest insight of this paper is that trademark cases in cyberspace and entertainment make no sense under any of the traditional theories of IP or trademark￾specific theories, save one: personality interests. The cases also indicate that the interests of trademark owners and the public interest does not necessarily coincide, assuming the public interest subsists in an expansive public domain.26 The entertainment media and cyberspace cases validate in dramatic fashion the notion that as trademark law moves away from confusion theory, the potential for abusive, antisocial trademark litigation which has a chilling effect on the expression of 22 Mattel Corporation, owner of Barbie, is another company that arguably brings lawsuits that impinge on expressive conduct and the public domain. See Lisa Bannon, Barrister Barbie? Mattel Plays Rough, www.s-t.com/daily/01-98/01-09-98/b02li044.htm (Jan. 1, 1998)(detailing oppressive lawsuits and threats to sue alleged infringers by Mattel regarding its “Barbie” mark). 23 A leading jurist, for example, has cogently argued elsewhere that “[o]verprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it…[c]reativity is impossible without a rich public domain.” White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, ____ (9th Cir. 1993)(Kozinski, J., dissenting). 24 See Alison P. Howard, A Fistful of Lawsuits: The Press, the First Amendment, and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 88 CALIF. L. REV. 127 (2000)(lawsuits by plaintiffs seeking to avoid obstacles in defamation claims by using trademark law “disregards both the First Amendment’s goal of promoting the free exchange of ideas and section 43(a)’s goal of reducing consumer confusion rather than protecting plaintiff’s reputations”). 25 See Kenneth L. Port, The Congressional Expansion of American Trademark Law: A Civil Law System in the Making, 35 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 827, 828-29 (2000). 26 See BEVERLY W. PATTISHALL, DAVID C. HILLIARD & JOSEPH NYE WELCH, II, 9 TRADEMARKS & UNFAIR COMPETITION (3rd Ed. 1998): (remarking that “[t]he public interest against deception is necessarily a fundamental consideration in trade identity unfair competition cases, yet the treatment of that interest is ordinarily residual to what is primarily a private complaint.”)