While the Supreme Court’s last term included a number of blockbuster decisions, the majority of cases received minimal coverage.
Anastasia Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation explores three underreported decisions from the Supreme Court’s October 2019 term: USPTO v. Booking.com, Babb v. Wilkie, and Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants.
Learn more about Anastasia Boden:
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular positions on legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
Related Links & Differing Views:
USPTO v. Booking.com
SCOTUSblog: “Opinion analysis: Court holds that ‘generic.com’ marks may be registered trademarks or service marks when consumers do not perceive them as generic”
IP Watchdog: “The Consumer is King: High Court Sides with Booking.com, Rejects Per Se Test for Generic.Com Trademarks”
The National Law Review: “U.S. Supreme Court Cancels USPTO’s Reservations About Registering Booking.com Brand Name”
The Federalist Society: “Courthouse Steps Decision: United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.”
Lexology: “Supreme Court Finds That ‘Generic.com’ Terms Can Be Trademarks”
Babb v. Wilkie
SCOTUSblog: “Opinion analysis: Federal employees need not show ‘but-for causation’ to establish age discrimination liability”
Forbes: “High Court Says Age Discrimination In Employment Act Offers Greater Protection To Federal Workers”
Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review: “Babb v. Wilkie and the Future Viability of Statutory Discrimination Claims”
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants
Reason: “Part I: Barr v. AAPC and Judicial Departmentalism”
Balkinization: “Skirmishes over Non-Retroactivity Doctrine at the Supreme Court”
SCOTUSblog: “Opinion analysis: Fractured court rules in favor of political consultants in First Amendment challenge to federal robocall law but keeps robocall ban in place”
The Federalist Society: “Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast”