Comments on: Pornography Route 66 Film Doesn’t Infringe Trademark in Route 66 TV Program

By: Ermelinda Kummer

Ermelinda Kummer — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 02:15:44 +0000

clearly I’m certain I’m not the only person to think this way.

By: Myrtle Beach Attorney

Myrtle Beach Attorney — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:16:24 +0000

obtainable via a direct download web link apply for our no fax payday loan today holding 00 s fiddlers green cirenglewood co 0111tel no teletrack

By: Sandy MacHoots

Sandy MacHoots — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:29:44 +0000

Apropos the confusion issue, which was raised back in the discussion of “Going Rogue”/”Going Rouge,” at least two major news outlets, Fox and the CBC, have already accidentally used the knockoff “Going Rouge” cover as an illustration for Palin’s book. And dozens of newspapers appear to have spelled the title incorrectly Would the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Company can’t tell the difference between the covers have any impact on the confusion claim?

By: Can't find a good name

Can't find a good name — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:36:17 +0000

Steven: I think the likelihood of actual confusion is nil. If this film is shown on cable or pay-per-view, it would only be shown on an all-X-rated films channel, not a mainstream films channel. And the DVD cover features two topless women. I don't think there are any customers looking in the adult section of their local DVD store thinking, "Oh, they made a film of the 1960s TV series Route 66, but with naked women in the leads instead of Martin Milner and George Maharis. Maybe this is one of those good TV-show remakes like The Fugitive or The Untouchables."

By: Crunchy Frog

Crunchy Frog — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:50:46 +0000

Elmer: Not everyone looks at the pictures on the box. I once rented the wrong version of Howard’s End, which gave me an erroneous impression of Merchant Ivory that lasted for some years.

Which raises the question: when you learned the truth, were you disappointed?

By: Steven

Steven — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:45:06 +0000

Following on Elmer’s comment, the MIT student group that shows movies showed “Flash Gordon” once in the mid-90s. When they got the trailer, though, the trailer was for a movie called “Flesh Gordon”. They decided to show it anyway, with a disclaimer that it was not actually the movie scheduled for the Sci Fi marathon.

I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know Rogers, and I haven’t clicked through for context (maybe this will only be distributed through a pornography-only channel?), but I find it surprising that the judge(s) don’t think there’s a substantial likelihood of confusion.

By: Elmer

Elmer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:01:39 +0000

Not everyone looks at the pictures on the box. I once rented the wrong version of Howard’s End, which gave me an erroneous impression of Merchant Ivory that lasted for some years.

By: Judge says porn film doesn’t infringe on “Route 66″ trademark « Route 66 News

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:42:57 +0000

[...] tip: Volokh Conspiracy and Peter Black, aka [...]

By: EH

EH — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:31:32 +0000

Does it matter that “Route 66″ was an actual highway? Surely this isn’t going so far as to say all porn remakes would pass the Rogers test, is it?

By: Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Pornography Route 66 Film Doesn’t Infringe Trademark in Route 66 TV Program -- Topsy.com

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:28:56 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Black, Ron Warnick. Ron Warnick said: RT @PeterBlackQUT: reading "pornography route 66 film doesn’t infringe trademark in route 66 tv program" http://j.mp/1lEmfe [...]

By: Dotar Sojat

Dotar Sojat — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:03:29 +0000

As long as they don’t use a Stingray convertible.

By: ASlyJD

ASlyJD — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:42:56 +0000

I actually live not too far from 69 Hwy. Strangely, the 69 South sign gets stolen quite often…

By: Brennan

Brennan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:30:43 +0000

Judge Rogers Plaintiff — claims Rock Star made her do it.

Sometimes two prongs make it a legal right, folks.

By: BT

BT — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:01:35 +0000

Great now I can start working on my opus, Debbie Does Route 66!!!!

By: Careless

Careless — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:36:01 +0000

FXKLM: I guess “Route 69″ was already taken.

IMDB has at least three pornographic "Route 69" films listed

By: ASlyJD

ASlyJD — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:02:30 +0000

Oh, and must again congratulate Prof. Volokh for his awe-inspiring Lexis alerts.

By: ASlyJD

ASlyJD — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:35:32 +0000

I nominated FXKLM for thread winner, can I get a second?

By: FXKLM

FXKLM — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:09:23 +0000

I guess “Route 69″ was already taken.

By: Arkady

Arkady — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:55:35 +0000

Rather stiffly written opinion, if you ask me.

By: Strick

Strick — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:26:53 +0000

Wonder where the judge’s head was writing about the “prongs” in the law relevant to a porn-related case.