Resolving procedural issues does not strengthen protection
Mandel ’18 [Gregory N.; January; Dean & Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University; Minnesota Law Review, “Institutional Fracture in Intellectual Property Law: The Supreme Court Versus Congress,” 102:803]
cases of the time period according to Westlaw’s citation tool, as of December 31, 2016, are Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), and Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), both in total citations (4400 citations and 2500 citations, respectively) and in citations within three years of decision (1100 citations and 1000 citations, respectively). See also Tom W. Bell, Misunderestimating Dastar: How the Supreme Court Unwittingly Revolutionized Copyright Preemption, 65 MD. L. REV. 206, 226 (2006) (discussing the import of Dastar); Krista F. Holt & Scot A. Duvall, Chasing Moseley’s Ghost: Dilution Surveys Under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 98 TRADEMARK REP. 1311, 1311 (2008) (stating that Moseley was a landmark decision); Greg Lastowka, Trademark’s Daemons, 48 HOUS. L. REV. 779, 811 (2011) (noting that Moseley is one of the most prominent examples of trademark dilution law). Two of the Supreme Court trademark decisions concerned procedural issues that did not strengthen or weaken substantive trademark protection. B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 1305 (2015) (holding that trademark issues adjudicated by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board preclude a party from arguing the same issues before a district court); Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907, 911 (2015) (holding that whether two trademarks can be tacked for priority purposes is a question of fact for the jury).