at large is posed not as much by cyber squatters but by the abusive use of trademark law by trademark owners, typically large corporate interests who seek to control corporate image at the expense of the marketplace of ideas paradigm. Finally, as the Supreme Courts recent opinion in Mosely indicates, courts by and large generally appear to take a more conservative view toward the expansion of IPRs, particularly trademark rights, even in the face of expansionist legislation such as the Trademark Dilution Act of 1996 This article examines and critiques the expansion of trademark law in the context of the entertainment industry and the internet. Entertainment-media issues, involving film, music, art and publishing, frequently stand at ground zero in the battleground of Ip disputes, and in such disputes we see the convergence of (and conflict between)owner- centered interests, the public domain, and the marketplace of ideas. This article contends that the aggressive trademark litigation strategy of companies such as playboy and 18 One commentator has characterized IP as"a kind of unrelenting organic force [that] Congress and the courts cultivate new varieties of every day... See Robert P Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights OrganizationS, 84 CAL L REV. 1293, 1294(1996) I Commentators have recognized that"o]ne characteristic of legally granted monopolies is their tendency to be misused by those in power. See Robert Patrick Merges and Glenn Harlan Reynolds, The Proper Scope of the Copyright and Patent Power, 37 HARV. J ON LEGIS. 45, 47(2000)(contending Constitution limits Congress' power to expand intellectual property protection for the benefit of individual companies See Ringling Bros.-Barnum Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v Utah Div. of Travel Dev, 170 F3d 449 (4 Cir. 1999)(outlining historical hostility of courts toward dilution doctrine) 2SeeCourtneyMacavinta,playBoywinspiracysuithttp://news.cnetcom(4-22-98),notingthat (Playboy] has ferociously scoured the Net for unauthorized uses of its famous nude pictorials, and subsequently has slapped Web site operators with costly lawsuits"). In similarly aggressive litigation, Playboy sued former playmate Terri Welles for, inter alia, Welles depictions of herself on the web site as former playmate of the year. The Ninth Circuit (duh)rejected Playboy's claims. See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 7 F. Supp 2d 1098(S D. Cal. 1998). But cf, Dan McCuaig, Halve the Baby An Obvious Solution to the Troubling Use of Trademarks as Metatags, 18 J. MARSHALL J COMPUTER AND INFORMATION L 643, 655 (2000)(contending that while"Playboy has long been at the forefront of the rush of trademark holders to protect their trademarks from unscrupulous use on the Internet. [Playboys conduct] is more likely attributable to the relative commercial value of [Playboys marks as metatags than to any super-litigious nature of [Playboy")5 at large is posed not as much by cyber squatters but by the abusive use of trademark law by trademark owners, typically large corporate interests who seek to control corporate image at the expense of the marketplace of ideas paradigm.19 Finally, as the Supreme Courts recent opinion in Mosely indicates, courts by and large generally appear to take a more conservative view toward the expansion of IPR’s, particularly trademark rights, even in the face of expansionist legislation such as the Trademark Dilution Act of 1996.20 This article examines and critiques the expansion of trademark law in the context of the entertainment industry and the Internet. Entertainment-media issues, involving film, music, art and publishing, frequently stand at ground zero in the battleground of IP disputes, and in such disputes we see the convergence of (and conflict between) owner￾centered interests, the public domain, and the marketplace of ideas. This article contends that the aggressive trademark litigation strategy of companies such as Playboy21 and 18 One commentator has characterized IP as “a kind of unrelenting organic force [that] Congress and the courts cultivate new varieties of every day…” See Robert P. Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, 84 CAL. L. REV. 1293, 1294 (1996). 19 Commentators have recognized that “[o]ne characteristic of legally granted monopolies is their tendency to be misused by those in power.” See Robert Patrick Merges and Glenn Harlan Reynolds, The Proper Scope of the Copyright and Patent Power, 37 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 45, 47 (2000)(contending Constitution limits Congress’ power to expand intellectual property protection for the benefit of individual companies). 20 See Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. of Travel Dev., 170 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 1999)(outlining historical hostility of courts toward dilution doctrine). 21 See Courtney Macavinta, “Playboy wins piracy suit”, http.//news.cnet.com (4-22-98), noting that “([Playboy] has ferociously scoured the Net for unauthorized uses of its famous nude pictorials, and subsequently has slapped Web site operators with costly lawsuits”). In similarly aggressive litigation, Playboy sued former playmate Terri Welles for, inter alia, Welle’s depictions of herself on the web site as “former playmate of the year.” The Ninth Circuit (duh) rejected Playboy’s claims. See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 7 F. Supp.2d 1098 (S.D. Cal. 1998). But c.f., Dan McCuaig, Halve the Baby: An Obvious Solution to the Troubling Use of Trademarks as Metatags, 18 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER AND INFORMATION L. 643, 655 (2000)(contending that while “Playboy has long been at the forefront of the rush of trademark holders to protect their trademarks from unscrupulous use on the Internet…[Playboy’s conduct] is more likely attributable to the relative commercial value of [Playboy’s] marks as metatags than to any super-litigious nature of [Playboy]”)