[LRTW] 1/2 & 1/9 final AO presentations

Important notes:

  • We will meet at 1 PM as usual, and conclude (hopefully) by 6 PM this week, and earlier next week.
  • As a presenter, you are expected to present your arguments anew, as in a conference; in other words, pretend we haven’t heard them before.
  • As a reviewer, you are expected to review the logical coherence of the arguments, the format of cited resources, and presentation performance.
  • All are expected to read everyone else’s AO, in addition to the one you review. This is your last chance to shore up your participation score.
  • Learn to take good control of your time. Highlight your main arguments when time is short, and elaborate when time permits.
  • Each session lasts 1 hr. (see time allocation table below).

Order of Presentations & Presenter-reviewer (red) Pairing:

  • The order and pairing have been decided by a series of random draws (conducted by a secret guest) under the following guidelines:
  1. All AOs by ILG (法政所) students will be reviewed by IIE (產經所) students, and vice versa (with one exception for the apparent reason that the IIE group has one more member).
  2. All presenters this week will be reviewers next week (again, with one exception).
order presenter reviewer
week 1
1 吳啟豪 陳宛渝
2 潘書嫺 黃中麟
3 盧藝汎 陳珮文
4 陳宛渝 楊岱欣
5 李路宣 黃宇良
week 2
6 陳珮文 李路宣
7 黃宇良 盧藝汎
8 黃中麟 吳啟豪
9 楊岱欣 潘書嫺

Time Allocation:

presentation 20 min.
review 8 min.
open discussion 12 min.
author’s final response 5 min.
moderator’s time 10 min.

[Antitrust] 12/11 Market Interference: Trademark & Copyright Issues


  • Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir., 2007).
  • 智慧財產法院100年度行商訴字第104號判決 (嬌蕉包案) (上訴經最高行政法院101年度裁字第391號裁定駁回)。


  • The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006.
  • Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003).
  • 王敏銓,從維多利亞秘密案看美國聯邦商標淡化法,收錄於焦興鎧主編,美國最高法院重要判決之研究,2000-2003,頁235 (2007)。
  • KP Permanent Make–Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, 543 U.S. 111 (2004).
  • Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012).
  • Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition (Search in Westlaw by the citation “REST 3d UNCOM 1″, then click on the “Table of Contents” link on the left), in particular ch. 2 & 3.
  • Restatement (Second) of Torts § 768 (1979): Competition As Proper Or Improper Interference (Search in Westlaw by the citation “REST 2d TORTS 768″).
  • Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
  • Michael Grynberg, Trademark Litigation as Consumer Conflict, 83 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 60 (2008).
  • Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
  • Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001).
  • Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (1988).
  • Lee v. A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997).