No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Work, Identity, and the Regulation of Markets: A Study of Trademark Law in the United States and Germany
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2019
Abstract
This article considers how legal systems capture different cultural perceptions of work in an individual’s life. We inquire how two models—“human capital,” based on the works of Adam Smith; and “vocation,” based on the works of G. W. F. Hegel—are reflected in legal regulations and judicial rhetoric in the United States and Germany. Specifically, we examine how these two legal systems treat the practice of using personal names—the most direct referents to individuals’ identities—in business. We discuss three sets of cases: cases involving the use of personal names as trademarks, cases involving conflicts between parties with similar names, and cases involving the transfer of rights in personal names. The article demonstrates that the US legal system treats work as a commercial asset, as “human capital” in Smith’s sense, whereas German law perceives work as an integral part of one’s identity, echoing the Hegelian line of “vocation.”
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2019 American Bar Foundation
Footnotes
The authors would like to thank Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir and four reviewers of Law & Social Inquiry for very valuable comments and suggestions.
References
REFERENCES
Altman, Louis, and Pollack, Malla. Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies. 4th ed. Westlaw Database, 2017.Google Scholar
Avineri, Shlomo. Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, Charles Wareing. English Surnames: Their Sources and Significations. 5th ed. London: Chatto & Windus, 1897.Google Scholar
von Bassewitz, Katharina. “Der Name als Marke: Prototyp des Warenzeichens oder non-inherently distinctive term? - Zugleich eine Anmerkung zur US-amerikanischen Entscheidung In re Dr. Matthias Rath.” GRUR Int. (2005): 660–65.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1964] 1993.Google Scholar
Bone, Robert G. “Hunting Goodwill: A History of the Concept of Goodwill in Trademark Law.” Boston University Law Review 86, no. 3 (2006): 547–622.Google Scholar
Bradley, Francis Herbert. “My Station and Its Duties.” In Ethical Studies, 160–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1876.Google Scholar
Campbell, T. D. Adam Smith’s Science of Morals. Glasgow: Glasgow University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Chamley, Paul. “Les origines de la pensée économique de Hegel.” Hegel-Studien III (1965): 225–61.Google Scholar
Dostal, Werner, Stooß, Friedemann, and Troll, Lothar. “Beruf– Auflösungstendenzen und erneute Konsolidierung.” Mitteilungen zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung 3 (1998): 438–60.Google Scholar
Fleischacker, Samuel. On Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: A Philosophical Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Forman-Barzilai, Fonna. Adam Smith and the Circles of Sympathy: Cosmopolitanism and Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Michael G. “Comment: Is It Fair to Confuse? An Examination of Trademark Protection, the Fair Use Defense, and the First Amendment.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 65 (1997): 1255–90.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.Google Scholar
Gheaus, Anca, and Herzog, Lisa. “The Goods of Work (Other than Money!)” Journal of Social Philosophy 47, no. 1 (2016): 70–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götting, Horst P. Persönlichkeitsrechte als Vermögensrechte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.Google Scholar
Griswold, Charles L. Jr. Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Haakonssen, Knud. The Science of the Legislator: The Natural Jurisprudence of David Hume and Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Soskice, David. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism.” In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, edited by Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handler, Milton. “A Personal Note on Trademark and Unfair Competition Law before the Lanham Act.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59, no. 2 (1996): 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handler, Milton, and Pickett, Charles. “Trade-Marks and Trade-Names—An Analysis and Synthesis: I.” Columbia Law Review 30, no. 2 (1930a): 168–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handler, Milton, and Pickett, Charles. “Trade-Marks and Trade-Names—An Analysis and Synthesis: II.” Columbia Law Review 30, no. 6 (1930b), 759–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardimon, Michael O. Hegel’s Social Philosophy: The Project of Reconciliation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Philosophy of Right. Translated with notes by T. M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1820/21] 1942.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. G.W.F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über Rechtsphilosophie 1818–1831. Vierter Band. Edited by Ilting, Karl-Heinz. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, [1818–1831] 1974.Google Scholar
Henderson, James P., and Davis, John B.. “Adam Smith’s Influence on Hegel’s Philosophical Writings.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 13, no. 2 (1991): 184–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, Lisa. Inventing the Market: Smith, Hegel, and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, Lisa.. ed. Hegel’s Thought in Europe: Currents, Crosscurrents, Countercurrents. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Josef. Das Recht des Markenschutzes, mit Berücksichtigung ausländischer Gesetzgebungen, und mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die englische, anglo-amerikanische, französische, belgische und italienische Jurisprudenz. Würzburg: Stahel, 1884.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A., and Shapiro, Carl. “Probabilistic Patents.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, no. 2 (2005): 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebesman, Yvette Joy. “When Selling Your Personal Name Extends to Selling Your Soul.” Temple Law Review 83, no. 1 (2010): 1–47.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. Thomas. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. 5th ed. Deerfield, IL: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2017.Google Scholar
McLean, Ian. Adam Smith: Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the Twenty-First Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso, 2013.Google Scholar
Muller, Jerry. The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought. New York: Anchor Books, 2002.Google Scholar
Netanel, Neil. “Alienability Restrictions and the Enhancement of Author Autonomy in United States and Continental Copyright Law.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 12 (1994): 1–78.Google Scholar
Neuhouser, Frederic. Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Nuzzo, Angelica. “The Standpoint of Morality in Adam Smith and Hegel.” In The Philosophy of Adam Smith: The Adam Smith Review, Volume 5: Essays Commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by Vivienne, Brown and Samuel, Fleischacker, 37–55. London / New York: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
Pistor, Katharina. “A Legal Theory of Finance.” Journal of Comparative Economics 41, no. 2 (2013): 315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane. “Property and Personhood.” Stanford Law Review 34, no. 5 (1982): 957–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition (1995).Google Scholar
Rifkin, Jeremy. The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. New York: Penguin, 2004.Google Scholar
Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Ryan, Alan. The Making of Modern Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Säcker, Franz Jürgen, Rixecker, Roland, Oetker, Hartmut, and Limperg, Bettina. Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: BGB. 7th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2017.Google Scholar
Schmidt am Busch, Hans-Christoph. Hegels Begriff der Arbeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt-Gaedke, Gernot, and Arz, Matthias. “Das Recht der Gleichnamigen und seine Grenzen.” GRUR (2012): 565–70.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. 2 vols. Edited by Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S.; textual editor W. B. Todd. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, [1776] 1976a.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edited by Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L.. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, [1790] 1976b.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Pedro N. “Dr. Smith and the Moderns: Adam Smith and the Development of Human Capital Theory.” Adam Smith Review 3, edited by Brown, Vivienne (2007): 139–58.Google Scholar
Wadle, Elmar. “Entwicklungslinien des deutschen Markenschutzes im 19.” Jahrhundert, GRUR (1979): 383–89.Google Scholar
Waszek, Norbert. The Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel’s Account of “Civil Society.” Dordrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werhane, Patricia. Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Wittrock, Quentin R. “Note: Use of Personal Names in Noncompeting Businesses - Doctrines of Unfair Competition, Trademark Infringement, and Dilution.” Iowa L. Rev. 70 (1985): 995–1019.Google Scholar
Wood, Alan W. Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeoman, Ruth. Meaningful Work and Workplace Democracy. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US CASES CITED
Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebow, 225 U.S.P.Q. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), judgment aff’d, 226 U.S.P.Q. 104 (2d Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U.S. 372 (1926).Google Scholar
A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 2002 WL 2012618 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).Google Scholar
Avery & Sons v. Meikle & Co., 81 Ky. 73 (1883).Google Scholar
A. W. Cox Dep’t Store Co. v. Cox’s Inc., 159 W. Va. 306 (1976).Google Scholar
Basile, S.p.A. v. Basile, 899 F.2d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
Bertolli, USA, Inc. v. Filippo Bertolli Fine Foods, Ltd., 662 F. Supp. 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).Google Scholar
Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U.S. 540 (1891).Google Scholar
Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Champion, 23 F. Supp. 638 (E.D. Mich. 1938).Google Scholar
Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc. v. Winchester Co., 300 F. 706 (2d Cir. 1924).Google Scholar
Continental Motors Corp. v. Continental Aviation Corp., 153 U.S.P.Q. 313 (5th Cir. 1967).Google Scholar
Coty, Inc., v. Parfums De Grande Luxe, 298 F. 865 (2d Cir. 1924).Google Scholar
David B. Findlay, Inc. v. Findlay, 271 N.Y.S.2d 652 (1966).Google Scholar
D.L. Anderson’s Lakeside Leisure Co. v. Anderson, 757 N.W. 2d 803 (Wisc. 2008).Google Scholar
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1992).Google Scholar
Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., 377 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
Frazer v. Frazer Lubricator Co., 121 Ill. 147 (1887).Google Scholar
Garrett v. T.H. Garrett & Co., 78 F. 472 (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1896).Google Scholar
Gucci v. Gucci Shops, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 916 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).Google Scholar
Guth v. Guth Chocolate Co., 224 F. 932 (4th Cir. 1915).Google Scholar
Hat Corp. of America v. D. L. Davis Corp., 4 F. Supp. 613 (D. Conn. 1933).Google Scholar
Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazelton Tripod Boiler Co., 142 Ill. 494 (1892).Google Scholar
Hilton v. Hilton, 89 N.J. Eq. 182 (1918).Google Scholar
Hunt Potato Chip Co. v. Hunt, 164 N.E.2d 335 (1960).Google Scholar
Ida May Co. v. Ensign, 20 Cal. App. 2d 339 (3d Dist. 1937).Google Scholar
JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 591 F. Supp. 2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), vacated and remanded, 568 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co., 54 U.S.P.Q. 38 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1942).Google Scholar
John R. Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1966).Google Scholar
Lazzaroni USA Corp. v. Steiner Foods, 2006 WL 932345 (D.N.J. 2006).Google Scholar
In re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc., 216 B.R. 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997).Google Scholar
Levitt Corp. v. Levitt, 593 F.2d 463 (2d Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914).Google Scholar
Lewis v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D. Pa. 2007).Google Scholar
Max Factor & Co. v. Factor, 226 F. Supp. 120 (S.D. Cal. 1963).Google Scholar
Meneely v. Meneely, 62 N.Y. 427 (1875).Google Scholar
Paul Frank Indus. v. Sunich, 502 Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2007).Google Scholar
Peaceable Planet v. Ty, 362 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
Perini Corp. v. Perini Construction, Inc., 915 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
Philbrick v. eNom, Inc., 593 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D.N.H. 2009).Google Scholar
Poorman v. Julian, 160 N.E.2d 169 (Ill. App. Ct. 1959).Google Scholar
Reddaway v. Bonham, A.C. 199 (1896).Google Scholar
R.J. Toomey Co. v. Toomey, 683 F. Supp. 873 (D. Mass. 1988).Google Scholar
Robin Woods, Inc. v. Woods, 815 F. Supp. 856 (W.D. Pa. 1992), judgment rev’d on other grounds, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1476 (3d Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
Russia Cement Co. v. Le Page, 17 N.E. 304 (Mass. 1888).Google Scholar
Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169 (1896).Google Scholar
S. Scrap Material Co. v. Smith, 253 Ala. 356 (1950).Google Scholar
Sullivan v. Ed Sullivan Radio & T.V., Inc., 110 U.S.P.Q. 106 (1st Dep’t 1956).Google Scholar
Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
Vassar College v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co., 197 F. 982 (W.D. Mo. 1912).Google Scholar
Visser v. Macres, 137 U.S.P.Q. 492 (4th Dist. 1963).Google Scholar
V. J. Doyle Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Doyle, 584 P.2d 594 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1978).Google Scholar
W-K-M Div. of Joy Mfg. Co. v. WK Industries, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1967 (S.D. Tex. 1987).Google Scholar
Yarmuth-Dion, Inc. v. D’ion Furs, Inc., 835 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
GERMAN CASES CITED
Reichsgericht (RG)—The Supreme Court of the German Empire (before 1945)Google Scholar
RG 21.12.1880, RGZ 3, 69 [RG 1880].Google Scholar
RG 22.09.1899, RZG 44, 71– Viktoria [RG 1899].Google Scholar
RG 24.2.1925, RGZ 110, 234– Malzmann [RG 1925a].Google Scholar
RG 15.10.1925, RGZ 111, 69– Arnheim [RG 1925b].Google Scholar
RG Jw. 1926, 1326 [RG 1926a].Google Scholar
RG MuW 1926, 42 [RG 1926b].Google Scholar
RG GRUR 1928, 657, 660– Weber [RG 1928].Google Scholar
RG GRUR 1940, 358 [RG 1940].Google Scholar
RG GRUR 1941, 110 [RG 1941a].Google Scholar
RG MuW 1941, 47– Knipping [RG 1941b].Google Scholar
RG 30.09.1943, DR 1944, 249 [RG 1944a].Google Scholar
RG GRUR 1944, 38– W. C. & Co. GmbH [RG 1944b].Google Scholar
Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)—The Supreme Court of Germany (after 1945)Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1951, 410– Luppy [BGH 1951].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1952, 511– Farina Urkölsch [BGH 1952].Google Scholar
BGH 27.01.1953, I ZR 55/52– Hoch- und Tiefbau [BGH 1953].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1957, 342– Underberg [BGH 1957a].Google Scholar
BGH 25.10.1957, I ZR 136/56– Wyeth [BGH 1957b].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1958, 143– Schwardmann [BGH 1958a].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1958, 185 [BGH 1958b].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1960, 33– Zamek [BGH 1960].Google Scholar
BGH 1966, 623– Kupferberg [BGH 1966].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1967, 89– Rose [BGH 1967].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1968, 212– Hellige [BGH 1968].Google Scholar
BGH 19.05.1976, I ZR 81/75– Kyffhäuser [BGH 1976].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1979, 642– Billich [BGH 1979].Google Scholar
BGH 03.07.1986, I ZR 77/85– Stoll [BGH 1986].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1987, 128– Nena [BGH 1987a].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1987, 182 [BGH 1987b].Google Scholar
BGH NJW-RR 1988, 95 [BGH 1988].Google Scholar
BGH NJW-RR 1990, 618 [BGH 1990a].Google Scholar
BGH 24.10.1990, XII ZR 112/89– Johanniter-Bier [BGH 1990b].Google Scholar
BGH 22.11.1990, I ZR 14/89– Ott International [BGH 1990c].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1991, 157 [BGH 1991a].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1991, 393 [BGH 1991b].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1991, 472– Germania [BGH 1991c].Google Scholar
BGH 01.04.1993, I ZR 85/91– Römer GmbH [BGH 1993a].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1993, 579 [BGH 1993b].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1995, 507– City-Hotel [BGH 1995a].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1995, 825– Torres Fezer [BGH 1995b].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 1996, 422– J. C. Winter [BGH 1996].Google Scholar
BGH 02.10.1997, I ZR 105/95– “Dr. St. … Nachf.” [BGH 1997].Google Scholar
GRUR 2000, 709– Marlene Dietrich [BGH 2000].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 2002, 703– Vossius & Partner [BGH 2002].Google Scholar
BGH GRUR 2008, 801– Hansen-Bau [BGH 2008].Google Scholar
Cologne
District CourtsGoogle Scholar
OLG Köln 29.04.1983 6 U 201/82– Tina Farina [OLG Köln 1983].Google Scholar
OLG Köln, 24.10.1986, 6 U 52/86– Rothschild [OLG Köln 1986].Google Scholar
OLG Karlsruhe, GRUR 1989, 270– Heinkel [OLG Karlsruhe 1989].Google Scholar
OLG Saarbrücken, NJWE-WettbR 1999, 284– H&K GmbH [OLG Saarbrücken 1999].Google Scholar
Bundespatentgericht (BPatG)—Federal Patents and Trademarks OfficeGoogle Scholar
BPatG 03.04.2000, BPatGE 42, 275– Franz Marc [BPatG 2000].Google Scholar
BPatG 01.12.2004, 32 W(pat) 388/02– Rainer Werner Fassbinder [BPatG 2004].Google Scholar
BPatG GRUR 2006, 591– GeorgSimon Ohm [BPatG 2006].Google Scholar
BPatG GRUR 2008, 522– Percy Stuart [BPatG 2008a].Google Scholar
BPatG BeckRS 2008, 5314– Maya Plisetskaya [BPatG 2008b].Google Scholar
BPatG GRUR-RR 2014, 286– August-Macke-Haus [BPatG 2014].Google Scholar
Cologne
OLG Köln 29.04.1983 6 U 201/82– Tina Farina [OLG Köln 1983].Google Scholar
OLG Köln, 24.10.1986, 6 U 52/86– Rothschild [OLG Köln 1986].Google Scholar
Karlsruhe
OLG Karlsruhe, GRUR 1989, 270– Heinkel [OLG Karlsruhe 1989].Google Scholar
Saarbrücken
OLG Saarbrücken, NJWE-WettbR 1999, 284– H&K GmbH [OLG Saarbrücken 1999].Google Scholar
Bundespatentgericht (BPatG)—Federal Patents and Trademarks OfficeGoogle Scholar
BPatG 03.04.2000, BPatGE 42, 275– Franz Marc [BPatG 2000].Google Scholar
BPatG 01.12.2004, 32 W(pat) 388/02– Rainer Werner Fassbinder [BPatG 2004].Google Scholar
BPatG GRUR 2006, 591– GeorgSimon Ohm [BPatG 2006].Google Scholar
BPatG GRUR 2008, 522– Percy Stuart [BPatG 2008a].Google Scholar
BPatG BeckRS 2008, 5314– Maya Plisetskaya [BPatG 2008b].Google Scholar
BPatG GRUR-RR 2014, 286– August-Macke-Haus [BPatG 2014].Google Scholar
STATUTES CITED
Das Gesetz zum Schutz der Waarenbezeichnungen (1894).Google Scholar
Das Markengesetz (1994).Google Scholar
Das Reichsmarkenschutzgesetz (1874).Google Scholar
German Civil Code (1900).Google Scholar
German Commercial Code (1900).Google Scholar
The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1052, 1127.Google Scholar