Rebecca Tushnet

Millions of voters across the US received robocalls and texts encouraging them to stay at home on Election Day, in what experts believe were clear attempts at suppressing voter turnout in the closely contested 2020 political races. Employing such tactics to spread disinformation and sow confusion amid elections isn’t new, and it’s not yet clear whether they were used more this year than in previous elections—or what effect they actually had on turnout. However, there is some speculation that given the heavy scrutiny of election disinformation on social media in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, malicious actors may have leaned more on private forms of communication like calls, texts, and emails in this election cycle...The use of robocalls for the purpose of political speech is broadly protected in the US, under the First Amendment’s free-speech rules. But the incidents described above may violate state or federal laws concerning election intimidation and interference. That’s particularly true if the groups that orchestrated them were acting in support of a particular campaign and targeting voters likely to fall into the other camp, says Rebecca Tushnet, a law professor at Harvard Law School. The tricky part is tracking down the groups responsible, says Brad Reaves, an assistant professor in computer science at North Carolina State University and a member of the Wolfpack Security and Privacy Research Lab. The source of such calls is frequently obscured as the call switches across different telecom networks with different technical protocols.

It was bound to happen. People across the world are trying to trademark QAnon, the American far-right conspiracy theory baselessly claiming that Donald Trump is saving the world from a group of elite satanist paedophiles. According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organisation, a UN agency dealing with patents, copyrights, and trademark, seven applications to register “QAnon” or “Q Anon” as a trademark have been filed since the conspiracy theory debuted on 4Chan in October 2017. Of these, two have been successful – one in Australia and one in Germany – one has been dismissed, and the remaining four are pending. Most applications declare the intention to use the word – the pseudonym of the conspiracy theory’s initiator and now a byword for the whole delusion – as a brand for clothes, hats, coffee mugs, gadgets; some also aimed at registering the trademark to provide entertainment products and consultancy services...But the United States, where QAnon was born and most of its followers are based, is also the country where trademarking it might prove toughest. “Every time there's a cultural phenomenon, someone will try and register the associated phrase as a trademark,” says Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of law at Harvard Law School. “In the US, it usually fails.” That is because trademarks are supposed to work as indications of source: a swoosh on a pair of sneakers will tell you that those shoes were made by Nike rather than Reebok; an apple on a laptop will remind you that your computer was designed in Cupertino. In contrast, a QAnon logo on a T-shirt would not bring to mind any particular stylist. “The US Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO], which is the US entity that scrutinises these things, is likely to say: ‘This is just a name of a dispersed movement’,” Tushnet explains. “It doesn't tell anything about the source of the product.”

The U.S. Supreme Court seemed to struggle Monday with rules for trademarking generic names that are combined with the .com phrase. Many justices seemed to agree with an attorney for Booking.com that a 132-year-old Supreme Court precedent probably doesn’t control the case. But they also sounded wary of granting an online monopoly over entire categories of goods and services, and that it could lead to a flood of litigation over similar sounding dot.com names...A longstanding rule of trademarks is that generic names cannot be registered. The PTO argues that adding .com isn’t enough to make a generic mark descriptive and potentially eligible for registration. The agency is invoking an 1888 Supreme Court ruling, Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. v. Goodyear Rubber, that adopted a similar rule for the addition of “Company” or “Inc.” to a name. More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the PTO’s refusal to register Hotels.com and Mattress.com, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found AOL’s Advertising.com generic. The agency is getting amicus support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a group of intellectual property scholars led by Harvard’s Rebecca Tushnet, whose brief the justices brought up repeatedly Monday. The scholars caution against giving generic mark holders too big of a stick to ward off competitors and suggest that .coms can use unfair competition law to solve the problems they’ve identified.

Price gouging on face masks during a pandemic is pretty crummy behavior, but is it a violation of federal trademark law? 3M, the country's largest producer of crucial N95 masks, certainly thinks so. The consumer goods giant filed a lawsuit Friday accusing a New Jersey company called Performance Supply LLC of violating federal trademark law by trying to resell millions of the company's N95s to New York City at drastically increased prices. Later that day, 3M filed a nearly identical lawsuit against a Utah company for similar behavior. According to 3M, both companies were selling the masks at more than four times the list price...According to Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, 3M's claim that defendants illegally held themselves out to be "authorized vendors" is something of a stretch, supported by little discussion of what separates such an endorsed distributor from a plain-old vendor. "The vendor-authorized vendor issue is a really important distinction that companies would like to ignore so that they can kill the first-sale doctrine," Tushnet said. "But first sale provides important benefits to consumers and to competition." Those concerns aside, the protections of the first-sale doctrine do have limits, and experts like Tushnet say the defendants may have crossed them by holding themselves out as actually connected to 3M. For instance, in the New York City lawsuit, 3M says the defendant company misleadingly warned the city that "acceptance of the purchase order is at the full discretion of 3M." "3M doesn't need to kill first sale," Tushnet said. "It can go after the actual falsities alleged here, and N.Y.'s attorney general is ready, willing and able to enforce the anti-price gouging statute."

On March 24, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear one of the most momentous tech cases in decades...The case is Google v. ­Oracle, and it turns on who owns scraps of computer code known as APIs. Short for application programming interfaces, APIs allow one computer program to talk to another by letting, for instance, a weather app pull live temperatures from a third party and then display them on a map. APIs are an essential building block of the digital economy, and in the blockbuster case Oracle says Google committed copyright infringement by using its APIs without permission...A final wild card in the case is the fact that the aged members of the Supreme Court are unlikely to have deep knowledge of APIs. Harvard law professor Rebecca Tushnet, who filed a brief supporting Google and its fair-use argument, believes the justices will get up to speed when the case goes to trial. Nonetheless, she acknowledges there is a risk they may overlook the technical intricacies of the case—including that Google is claiming only a specific subset of APIs shouldn’t be copyrighted. If this happens, the justices may rely instead on the broader story lines that the companies are arguing. “A compelling narrative always matters. It gives the court a reason to find in your favor,” says Tushnet. “One framing of the story is that Google went ahead and plundered. The other framing is Oracle took something that belongs to everyone else.”

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) this week held the first in a series of eight tentative hearings scheduled for this year on the topic of updating and modernizing the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Tillis’ goal is to address changes to the internet since the DMCA was passed in 1998, and by December 2020 to release draft text of a reform bill for stakeholder comment... Professor Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School and Professor Jessica Litman of University of Michigan Law School strongly cautioned the Subcommittee against conflating all internet service providers with Google and Facebook.  “Only a few services receive millions of [takedown] notices,” Tushnet said. “Most don’t need and couldn’t survive a requirement to use technological mechanisms to filter out rare infringements. If Congress changes 512 to target Google and Facebook, it will ensure that only they are left, making the problem of market concentration even worse.”

The first of 2020’s big copyright hearings started with a nod to Chumbawamba. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) had looked up which band topped the charts in 1998, the year Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act — one of the most influential and controversial laws governing the internet. Then, Tillis paused soberly. “I don’t know if we’re talking a lot about Chumbawamba” these days, he said. And the DMCA itself? “Almost every single thing about the internet has changed over the past 22 years, and the law simply hasn’t kept pace.”...The 1998 DMCA attempted to outline how copyright should work on the then-nascent internet, where you could almost freely and infinitely copy a piece of media. But it’s been widely criticized by people with very different stances on intellectual property. Supporters of tougher anti-piracy rules, for instance, argue that its “safe harbor” rules don’t motivate websites to keep pirated content offline. Conversely, internet freedom advocates say its takedown system provides a de facto censorship system for the web. And the DMCA’s reach touches far-flung issues like farm equipment repair, which makes it unavoidable even for industries with no piracy problems. This week’s hearing focused on two pieces of the law: Section 512, which spells out platforms’ liability for pirated content, and Section 1201, which limits cracking digital copy protection. “Most service providers don’t need and can’t get expensive filtering technology” that they’d need to implement a “stay-down” system, said Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet. “If Congress changes the DMCA to target Google and Facebook, or because of rogue overseas sites that already aren’t complying with the DMCA to begin with, it will ensure that only Facebook, Google and pirate sites survive.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said Tuesday that landmark legislation passed in 1998 to protect innovation and free speech on the internet while still fighting copyright infringement needs to be updated and that he wants to craft a reform bill by the end of the year. Tillis, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s intellectual property panel, kick-started the process of updating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by convening a hearing with experts who talked about the pros and cons of the law as it operates today...There has been an exploding number of take-down notices under the law’s safe harbors, known as Section 512, he said....But Rebecca Tushnet, a First Amendment professor at Harvard Law School, opposed making the kinds of changes sought by those two witnesses, saying that even though “the system is by no means perfect ... like democracy, it's better than most of the alternatives that have been tried.” “Changes to 512 would be likely to make things much worse,” she said. Tushnet recommended, among other things, focusing on antitrust in copyright and telecom in any reform of the 1998 law.

Puppy toys should have nothing to do with car engines. But a recent court complaint says Amazon.com Inc. halted sales of a “puppy sleep aid” after being told a storefront selling on its marketplace infringed two patents—one registered in 1895, and another directed to a Japanese “combustion device.” “Neither patent is enforceable. Neither patent is owned by any Defendant,” the complaint says. As Amazon expands its reign over e-commerce and gets more aggressive about rooting out counterfeiting, it’s taking a more active role in judging intellectual property disputes between merchants on its platform... “Amazon, with its size, now substitutes for government in a lot of what it does,” said Rebecca Tushnet, a First Amendment and copyright law professor at Harvard University. “It is being asked to run a judicial system, without the commitments to transparency and precedent of a real judicial system.” ...But “many of its initial attempts to deal with bad actors on its site, while clearly done in good faith, assumed that the initial set of bad actors (counterfeiters) was the problem to be dealt with, and its response then created a new set of opportunities for new kinds of bad behavior,” Tushnet said.

For decades, Vermont-based Ben and Jerry’s has enjoyed a reputation as one of the country’s most progressive, forward-thinking companies...In recent years, however, the business started by two friends in a converted Burlington gas station has faced criticism over its own production methods, including a pair of lawsuits accusing the longtime ice cream purveyor of misleading consumers about just how humane its products really are...falsely claiming the milk used in its ice cream comes exclusively from “happy cows” and so-called humane “Caring Dairy” farms....In California, a San Francisco judge tossed out a suit brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals accusing the California Milk Advisory Board of false advertising in a “Happy Cows” campaign — ruling that government entities aren’t subject to false advertising laws. But the allegations laid out in last month’s suit paint a compelling picture, says Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who specializes in advertising law. One of the key issues at hand, she says, will be whether the company’s “Caring Dairies” can be considered a factual claim or just marketing puffery. “By defining what ‘Caring Dairies’ means,” Tushnet says, “Ben and Jerry’s may well have made a factual claim that could be shown to be true or false.”

The Supreme Court is set to decide next month whether to review Oracle America Corp. and Google LLC’s nine-year fight over copyright fair use. In the meantime, a mash-up of Dr. Seuss children’s books and “Star Trek” television shows might provide the next big appellate test of the fair use doctrine. ... On the other side, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others argue that transformative mash-ups deserve fair use protection, and that “Boldly Go” in particular “recasts, recontextualizes, and adds new expression or meaning” to the Dr. Seuss works in ways designed to resonate with “Star Trek” fans. A group of IP scholars featuring Berkeley Law’s Pamela Samuelson, Stanford’s Mark Lemley and Harvard’s Rebecca Tushnet say that a copyright owner must show a likelihood of harm to their traditional, reasonable or likely markets. A mere showing that a copyright owner “maintains a robust licensing program or participates in a seasonal market that the second comer would like to enter” isn’t enough to carry that burden, they argue.

Lawyers for U.S. President Donald Trump and his re-election campaign have threatened in a letter to sue CNN for what they said was the network falsely advertising itself as a news organization, calling on executives to first discuss an “appropriate resolution” to the matter that would include a “substantial” payment to cover damages. The letter, dated Oct. 16 and made public on Friday, is the latest threat by Trump to sue a media organization over what he sees as unfair media coverage since launching his 2016 presidential campaign, although no lawsuits have been filed. ... Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of false advertising law at Harvard Law School, said there was “no merit” to the letter’s legal arguments and that she doubted a lawsuit would ever be filed. The letter was signed by Charles Harder, who has sent similar threats to media organizations on Trump’s behalf.

... A week earlier, the Boy Scouts of America—the national organization that oversees various outdoors programs for about 2 million children, including Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Venturing—had changed the name of its original, 109-year-old program to Scouts BSA. That made Amalie one of its first girl scouts. Not to be confused, of course, with the Girl Scouts—though Amalie said she’s one of those, too. ...And since 1938, when the U.S. Supreme Court told Nabisco and Kellogg Co. that they could both call their cereals “shredded wheat,” U.S. courts have been fairly consistent in allowing competing businesses to share a generic term. And yet, the term Girl Scouts is trademarked. “It’s a complex case,” says Rebecca Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in trademark law. “My prediction is that they’ll probably be able to change to ‘Scouts,’ but the issue will be over whether they have taken reasonable measures to avoid confusion.”

Pressure on Facebook is mounting following a live stream of the New Zealand mosque massacre, with the nation’s leader calling for an overhaul of the country’s social-media laws and her Australian counterpart proposing criminal penalties for companies that are slow to remove such content. ...Despite being relatively small markets, Australia and New Zealand may carry more clout in the debate over how Facebook moderates content. “English-speaking countries, at least for now, have a lot bigger impact,” said Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet.

Pressure on Facebook is mounting following a live stream of the New Zealand mosque massacre, with the nation’s leader calling for an overhaul of the country’s social-media laws and her Australian counterpart proposing criminal penalties for companies that are slow to remove such content. ... Despite being relatively small markets, Australia and New Zealand may carry more clout in the debate over how Facebook moderates content. “English-speaking countries, at least for now, have a lot bigger impact,” said Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet.

Last year, while promoting his debut thriller, “The Woman in the Window,” Dan Mallory praised the tradition of literary mimicry: “It is often said that ‘good writers borrow, great writers steal,’” he said in an interview with The Guardian, borrowing a phrase from T. S. Eliot. In retrospect, his choice of words was both surprisingly honest, and perhaps a clue to the depth of his deception. ... “The courts hold out the possibility that it could be infringement without a language overlap,” said Rebecca Tushnet, an intellectual property expert at Harvard Law School. “If you did the exact same things in the exact same sequence all the way through, the court wouldn’t have that much trouble finding infringement.”

On Jan. 1, a treasure trove of classic literature, along with other artistic works, entered the public domain as copyright protections expired.  ... Why now? As so often in American life, the answer begins with the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 provides Congress with the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The first Copyright Act in the United States was passed in 1790, with a maximum term of 28 years. And as also so often in American life, a simple idea evolved over the years into a system described as “mind-numbingly complex” by the Times and “worse than the tax code” by Rebecca Tushnet, an expert in intellectual property at Harvard Law School.

... Until now, the publishing house that still bears Knopf’s name has held the North American copyright on the title. But that will change on Jan. 1, when “The Prophet” enters the public domain, along with works by thousands of other artists and writers, including Marcel Proust, Willa Cather, D. H. Lawrence, Agatha Christie, Joseph Conrad, Edith Wharton, P. G. Wodehouse, Rudyard Kipling, Katherine Mansfield, Robert Frost and Wallace Stevens. ... When the first Copyright Act was passed in the United States in 1790, the maximum term was 28 years. Over the decades, lawmakers repeatedly prolonged the terms, which now stretch to over a century for many works. “It’s worse than the tax code,” said Rebecca Tushnet, an intellectual property expert at Harvard Law School. “The copyright term is way too long now.”