But the AFF would reverse that – that’s McDowall.

1AC McDowall 15 – Krystil McDowall (New York Attorney, specializing in Intellectual Property Law), Spring 2015, "A Critical Look at ‘Use’ Under the Landham Act," New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-4-No-2-2_McDowall_UseUnderLanhamAct.pdf /$antiP/

Critics may suggest that a minimal use approach would stem the incentive to compete embedded in the current use standard and that greater competition is fostered under the current standard by encouraging mark owners to establish themselves as quickly as possible. But this argument must be balanced against the fact that the current use standard systematically works against certain segments of the market, such as trademark owners who are small businesses or start-ups who are simply not able to quickly establish themselves. Adopting the minimal “single sale will suffice” standard of Australian law will allow American trademark owners a period of time after registration in which to establish and grow their business, without requiring immediate success judged by sales volume and significant advertising and marketing budgets. One benefit of this type of qualitative approach is that it fosters greater inclusiveness, which would better encompass the vast crosssection of commercial enterprises within the American landscape. It also means fewer federal registrations would be invalidated. Additionally, this type of approach would provide greater certainty to all trademark owners as businesses would be able to invest in a mark with greater certainty in knowing quality of use, not quantity, is the yardstick upon which a federal registration is measured. A legislative change to a qualitative, bona fide, minimal use focus thereby fosters greater equality.