law research paper competition

Competition Law Research Paper Topics

This page presents a comprehensive exploration of competition law research paper topics , designed to assist law students in their pursuit of academic excellence. As competition law continues to play a critical role in regulating market dynamics, students often face the challenge of choosing compelling research topics that reflect the evolving complexities of this field. Here, we highlight the diverse range of competition law research paper topics covered in this page, encompassing anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant market position, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property issues, digital markets, international antitrust enforcement, consumer protection, public policy implications, and emerging issues in the digital era. Through this curated list of topics, students will gain insights into the multifaceted dimensions of competition law, fostering critical thinking and the ability to address real-world challenges in an ever-changing legal landscape. Whether investigating the intersection of competition law and technology or exploring the impact of global trade on market competition, this page aims to empower students with an array of research paper ideas to embark on their scholarly endeavors in competition law.

100 Competition Law Research Paper Topics

Competition law is a dynamic and multifaceted field that addresses various issues related to market competition, monopolies, consumer welfare, and economic efficiency. As law students delve into this intricate domain, they often encounter the challenge of selecting compelling research paper topics that reflect the evolving complexities of competition law. To aid students in their academic journey, we present a comprehensive list of competition law research paper topics, carefully curated and divided into ten categories, each offering unique insights into the realm of market regulation and antitrust enforcement.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Anti-competitive Agreements:

• The Role of Cartels in Market Manipulation: Case Studies and Impact on Consumers
• Horizontal vs. Vertical Agreements: Analyzing the Distinctions and Legal Implications
• Price Fixing and Collusion: Assessing the Challenges of Detecting and Prosecuting Anti-competitive Conduct
• Leniency Programs: Evaluating the Effectiveness in Combating Cartels and Encouraging Cooperation
• Trade Associations and Competition Law: Balancing Industry Cooperation and Compliance with Antitrust Regulations
• Technology Cartels and the Digital Age: Investigating Anti-competitive Practices in Tech Markets
• Intellectual Property and Competition: Antitrust Implications of Patent Pools and Cross-Licensing Agreements
• Compliance Mechanisms for Agreements: Promoting Ethical Business Practices and Preventing Collusion
• Bundling and Tying Arrangements: Analyzing the Impact on Market Entry and Consumer Choice
• Antitrust Enforcement in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Addressing Market Distortions and Access to Medicine.

Abuse of Dominant Market Position:

• Monopolization and Market Power: Analyzing the Criteria for Identifying Dominant Firms
• Predatory Pricing and Market Entry Barriers: Evaluating the Impact on Competitors and Consumers
• Exclusionary Practices by Tech Giants: The Intersection of Dominance and Digital Markets
• Leveraging Dominant Position to Enter Adjacent Markets: Examining the Antitrust Implications
• Essential Facilities Doctrine: Balancing Market Dominance and Access to Key Infrastructure
• Market Definition and Dominant Market Shares: Methodological Challenges in Identifying Dominant Firms
• Refusal to Deal and Essential Inputs: Assessing the Role of Dominant Entities in Supply Chains
• Intellectual Property and Dominant Firms: Exploring the Intersection of Competition Law and Patents
• Abusive Discrimination and Market Access: Analyzing the Legal Framework and Enforcement Challenges
• Monopoly Regulation in Developing Economies: Promoting Fair Competition and Economic Growth.

Mergers and Acquisitions:

• Merger Control Thresholds: The Balance between Market Concentration and Facilitating Business Transactions
• Failing Firm Defense: Evaluating the Criteria for Allowing Mergers in Distressed Companies
• Killer Acquisitions: Assessing the Impact of Acquiring Potential Competitors on Innovation
• Conglomerate Mergers and Market Power: The Challenges of Analyzing Diversified Entities
• Gun-Jumping and Pre-merger Coordination: The Role of Antitrust Agencies in Preventing Premature Actions
• Cross-Border Mergers: Analyzing the Challenges of Harmonizing Antitrust Enforcement in Global Transactions
• Market Definition in Merger Analysis: The Significance of Product and Geographic Market Definition
• Remedies in Merger Control: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Divestitures and Behavioral Conditions
• Merger Waves and Economic Cycles: Examining the Relationship between M&A Activities and Market Performance
• Merger Notification Procedures: Streamlining the Review Process and Ensuring Effective Decision-Making.

Intellectual Property and Competition Law:

• Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Commitments: Balancing Innovation Incentives and Access to Essential Technologies
• Patent Thickets and Competition: Addressing Patent Pools and Overlapping Rights
• Intellectual Property Rights and Market Power: Antitrust Scrutiny of Dominant Firms with Strong IP Portfolios
• Technology Transfer Agreements and Antitrust Compliance: Evaluating Licensing Practices and Competition
• Trademarks and Market Distinctiveness: Analyzing the Antitrust Implications of Branding Strategies
• Copyright Licensing and Competition: The Interface between Copyright and Market Competition
• Big Data and Antitrust: The Impact of Data Dominance on Market Concentration and Consumer Choice
• Digital Rights Management and Competition Law: Striking a Balance between Copyright Protection and Market Access
• Antitrust Enforcement in the Digital Media Industry: Implications for Content Creators and Distribution Platforms
• Innovation and Market Dominance: The Interaction between Patent Protection and Competition Law.

Competition Law and Digital Markets:

• Big Tech and Platform Dominance: Investigating the Role of Technology Giants in Shaping Digital Markets
• Data Privacy and Antitrust: Analyzing the Relationship between Consumer Data and Market Power
• Online Platforms and Self-Preferencing: The Legal Boundaries of Fair Competition in E-Commerce
• Algorithmic Collusion: Detecting and Addressing Collusive Behavior in Automated Systems
• Digital Advertising and Competition: The Intersection of Targeted Ads and Market Concentration
• The Sharing Economy and Antitrust Regulation: The Challenges of Promoting Competition in Peer-to-Peer Platforms
• Internet Intermediaries and Market Fairness: Examining the Role of Online Intermediaries in Facilitating Market Access
• Digital Market Definition and Geographic Boundaries: The Challenges in Defining Online Markets
• Data Ownership and Market Power: The Antitrust Implications of Data Dominance in the Digital Era
• E-Commerce Platforms and Exclusionary Practices: Analyzing Anti-competitive Behavior in Online Markets.

International Antitrust Enforcement:

• Extraterritorial Application of Competition Law: The Legal Challenges and Global Cooperation Efforts
• Cross-Border Cartels: Investigating the Challenges of Multi-Jurisdictional Prosecution and Enforcement
• Regional Competition Agreements: Assessing the Role of Regional Bodies in Promoting Cross-Border Competition
• Merger Control in a Globalized Economy: Harmonization and Divergence of Merger Review Procedures
• Antitrust in the Digital Silk Road: The Impact of China’s Belt and Road Initiative on Global Markets
• International Trade and Market Access: Analyzing the Link between Antitrust and Trade Policies
• Antitrust and Developing Economies: Tailoring Enforcement to Local Contexts and Economic Development
• Antitrust Compliance in Cross-Border Mergers: Navigating the Legal Landscape of International Transactions
• Cross-Border Antitrust Investigations: Examining the Challenges of Collecting and Sharing Evidence
• Competition Advocacy in International Forums: Promoting Global Cooperation and Convergence.

Consumer Protection and Competition Law:

• Misleading Advertising and Consumer Deception: The Intersection of Consumer Rights and Market Competition
• Price Discrimination and Consumer Welfare: Analyzing the Impact on Vulnerable Populations
• Online Consumer Rights in Digital Markets: Ensuring Fair Practices and Redress Mechanisms
• Competition Law and Healthcare: Addressing Market Concentration and Access to Medicine
• Financial Services and Market Regulation: Consumer Protection in the Banking Sector
• Consumer Data and Privacy in the Digital Age: The Intersection of Consumer Protection and Data Dominance
• Unfair Competition Practices: Analyzing the Role of Unfair Competition in Restraining Market Access and Consumer Choice
• Product Safety and Market Competition: Balancing Innovation and Consumer Welfare
• Consumer Empowerment and Market Information: The Impact of Market Transparency on Consumer Decision-Making
• Competition Law Remedies for Consumer Harm: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Compensation Mechanisms.

Public Policy and Competition Law:

• Antitrust and Innovation: The Interplay between Market Competition and Technological Advancements
• Competition Policy and Economic Development: The Role of Antitrust in Fostering Economic Growth
• Political Influence and Market Concentration: Analyzing the Impact of Lobbying on Antitrust Regulation
• Market Regulation in Times of Crisis: Addressing Competition Challenges during Economic Downturns
• National Security and Competition Law: Balancing National Interests and Open Markets
• Market Power and Income Inequality: The Socioeconomic Implications of Market Concentration
• Technology Transfer and National Interest: Assessing the Role of Competition Law in Safeguarding Innovation
• Corporate Social Responsibility and Market Dominance: Examining Ethical Business Practices and Market Influence
• Environmental Sustainability and Competition Law: The Relationship between Competition and Green Business Practices
• Digital Sovereignty and Market Control: Navigating the Challenges of Global Technology Regulation.

Emerging Issues in the Digital Era:

• Artificial Intelligence and Antitrust: The Challenges of Addressing Algorithmic Collusion
• Blockchain Technology and Market Competition: The Potential of Decentralized Markets
• Data Monopolies and Market Distortion: Antitrust Implications in Data-Driven Economies
• Internet of Things and Market Dominance: The Intersection of Connected Devices and Competition Law
• Virtual Markets and Market Power: Analyzing the Antitrust Impact of Virtual Goods and Services
• Privacy Regulation and Competition Law: The Balancing Act between Data Protection and Market Competition
• Digital Disinformation and Competition Law: Addressing Misinformation and Consumer Manipulation
• Competition Law Enforcement in the Gig Economy: The Challenges of Regulating Flexible Work Arrangements
• Smart Cities and Antitrust: The Impact of Technological Urbanization on Market Concentration
• Cybersecurity and Market Competition: The Role of Antitrust in Protecting Against Cyber Threats.

Case Studies in Competition Law:

• Microsoft Antitrust Case: Analyzing the Legacy of the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. Case
• Google Antitrust Cases: Assessing the EU’s Multiple Investigations into Google’s Market Dominance
• Apple vs. Epic Games: The Antitrust Battle over App Store Policies and Market Access
• Qualcomm vs. FTC: The Antitrust Litigation over Qualcomm’s Licensing Practices
• Intel Antitrust Case: Examining the European Commission’s Decision on Intel’s Market Dominance
• Amazon and Antitrust: Investigating Amazon’s Role as a Dominant E-Commerce Platform
• Facebook and Market Dominance: The Antitrust Scrutiny of Social Media Platforms
• Standard Oil and the Origins of Antitrust: A Historical Perspective on Competition Regulation
• Uber and Antitrust: Addressing the Competition Challenges in the Ride-Hailing Industry
• Visa and Mastercard Antitrust Cases: Analyzing the Legal Battle over Credit Card Network Fees.

In conclusion, this comprehensive list of competition law research paper topics offers a diverse and extensive range of areas for exploration in the dynamic field of antitrust regulation and market competition. From examining the implications of anti-competitive agreements to navigating the challenges of regulating digital markets, students will find ample opportunities to delve into complex legal issues and contribute to the ongoing evolution of competition law. By exploring these thought-provoking topics, students can enhance their critical thinking skills, develop a deeper understanding of legal complexities, and contribute to the advancement of competition law jurisprudence. This carefully curated collection aims to empower law students in their academic pursuits and inspire them to undertake impactful research in the realm of competition law.

Competition Law: Exploring the Range of Research Paper Topics

Competition law, also known as antitrust law in some jurisdictions, is a crucial area of legal study that aims to promote fair competition and prevent anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. It plays a vital role in maintaining a level playing field for businesses, safeguarding consumer interests, and fostering economic efficiency. As students of law venture into the realm of competition law, they are presented with a vast and ever-evolving landscape of legal issues to explore and analyze. This section delves into the multifaceted world of competition law research paper topics, highlighting key areas of interest and offering valuable insights to inspire law students in their academic pursuits.

The Evolution of Competition Law

To begin our exploration, it is essential to understand the historical development of competition law. Students can investigate the origins of antitrust regulation, examining landmark cases and legislative milestones that have shaped the field over time. They can explore how competition law has evolved to adapt to new economic challenges and technological advancements, such as the impact of globalization and the digital era on market competition.

Theoretical Perspectives in Competition Law

Competition law draws upon various economic theories to justify its existence and guide its application. Students can delve into different theoretical perspectives, such as the Chicago School of thought, the Harvard School, and the Post-Chicago School, and critically analyze their implications for antitrust policy and enforcement. This area of research allows students to explore the tensions between economic efficiency and consumer welfare, as well as the role of competition authorities in balancing competing objectives.

Comparative Analysis of Competition Laws

Conducting a comparative study of competition laws across different jurisdictions provides an enriching research opportunity. Students can compare and contrast the legal frameworks, enforcement approaches, and policy objectives of various countries, shedding light on the diversity of approaches to competition regulation and identifying potential areas of harmonization or cooperation in the global context.

Market Definition and Dominance Assessment

Defining relevant markets and assessing market dominance are critical steps in competition law analysis. Research papers in this area can explore the methodologies used by competition authorities to define markets, measure market power, and identify dominant firms. Students can examine the challenges of market definition in emerging sectors, such as digital markets and technology-driven industries.

Anti-competitive Agreements

The prohibition of anti-competitive agreements lies at the core of competition law. Students can investigate the different types of agreements, such as cartels, price-fixing arrangements, and bid-rigging, and explore the legal and economic consequences of such collusive practices. Research papers may delve into leniency programs, the role of whistleblowers, and the use of technology in detecting and prosecuting anti-competitive agreements.

Abuse of Dominant Market Position

Analyzing cases of market dominance and abuse is an area of significant interest in competition law research. Students can examine the factors that contribute to market power, such as barriers to entry, network effects, and economies of scale, and explore how dominant firms may engage in exclusionary conduct to maintain or strengthen their position in the market. This research can include the examination of cases involving monopolization, predatory pricing, and refusal to deal.

Merger Control and Consolidation

Mergers and acquisitions have the potential to impact market competition significantly. Research papers in this area can focus on the effectiveness of merger control regulations in preventing anti-competitive consolidation, the role of economic analysis in merger reviews, and the challenges of regulating cross-border mergers. Students can explore the factors considered by competition authorities when evaluating the competitive effects of mergers and the design of remedies to address potential anti-competitive concerns.

Competition Law Enforcement in the Digital Age

As the world becomes increasingly digitalized, competition law faces new challenges in addressing the unique issues arising in the digital marketplace. Students can investigate the role of competition law in regulating online platforms, data-driven markets, and the use of algorithms. They may examine the complexities of applying traditional competition principles to the digital economy and consider the role of big data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning in competition enforcement.

Sector-Specific Competition Law

Competition law is often tailored to address specific industries or sectors. Students can explore sector-specific competition regulations, such as competition law in the healthcare industry, telecommunications, financial services, or energy markets. This research allows for an in-depth examination of the particular challenges and policy objectives that arise in different sectors and how competition law can be adapted to address sector-specific issues.

Competition Policy and Public Interest Considerations

Competition law enforcement is not only about promoting efficiency and consumer welfare but also involves considerations of public interest and broader societal objectives. Students can delve into the interface between competition law and public policy, examining cases where competition enforcement has been influenced by non-economic concerns, such as environmental protection, access to essential services, or cultural preservation.

The realm of competition law research offers a vast landscape of compelling topics that reflect the intricacies of market regulation, antitrust enforcement, and consumer protection. As law students engage in exploring these research paper topics, they embark on a journey to understand the complexities and significance of competition law in shaping the competitive dynamics of modern economies. Through their scholarly pursuits, students not only contribute to the academic discourse but also play a crucial role in advancing the field of competition law and its impact on society and economic welfare.

How to Choose Competition Law Research Paper Topics

Selecting a research paper topic is a crucial step in the academic journey of law students. The field of competition law offers a diverse range of fascinating and relevant issues for exploration, making the process of choosing the right research topic both exciting and challenging. This section provides valuable insights and practical tips to help students navigate the process of selecting compelling and well-defined competition law research paper topics that align with their interests, expertise, and academic goals.

• Identify Your Area of Interest : Begin by identifying your area of interest within the broad scope of competition law. Are you intrigued by antitrust enforcement in the digital economy, mergers and acquisitions, or the economic implications of market dominance? By narrowing down your interests, you can focus on specific topics that resonate with your passion for the subject.
• Conduct Preliminary Research : Before finalizing your research topic, conduct preliminary research to familiarize yourself with recent developments and emerging trends in competition law. Stay updated with landmark cases, policy changes, and academic publications in the field. This background research will help you identify gaps in the existing literature and potential areas for further exploration.
• Define Your Research Objectives : Clearly define your research objectives and the specific questions you aim to answer in your paper. Are you seeking to analyze the effectiveness of certain competition law regulations, explore the impact of market consolidation, or evaluate the role of competition enforcement in specific industries? Having well-defined research objectives will guide your selection of a focused and relevant topic.
• Analyze the Legal Framework : Competition law operates within a legal framework that varies across jurisdictions. If you are interested in conducting a comparative analysis, choose a topic that allows for a meaningful comparison of competition laws in different countries. Understanding the legal context is essential for framing your research question and methodology.
• Consider Practical Implications : Assess the practical implications of your chosen research topic. How does your research contribute to the ongoing discourse on competition law? Is there potential for your findings to inform competition policy or impact the enforcement practices of competition authorities? Topics with practical significance can add value to your research and demonstrate its relevance in the real world.
• Consult with Faculty and Peers : Engage in discussions with your faculty members and peers to seek their input and feedback on potential research topics. Collaborating with others can provide new perspectives, help refine your ideas, and ensure that your research aligns with academic standards and expectations.
• Access to Data and Resources : Consider the availability of data and resources relevant to your research topic. Access to comprehensive data and credible sources can significantly enhance the quality and depth of your research. Ensure that you have access to the necessary legal texts, court decisions, economic data, and academic literature to support your analysis.
• Timeliness and Relevance : Choose a research topic that is timely and relevant to the current state of competition law. Topics that address emerging issues, recent court decisions, or changes in regulatory approaches can attract greater interest from readers and contribute to ongoing debates in the field.
• Originality and Contribution : Strive for originality in your research topic and aim to make a unique contribution to the field of competition law. Avoid topics that have been extensively covered or lack novelty. Consider how your research can fill gaps in existing literature or offer fresh perspectives on well-known issues.
• Stay Open to Exploration : Finally, remain open to exploring new ideas and adjusting your research focus as you delve deeper into the literature. As you progress in your research journey, new insights may lead you to refine your research question or explore related areas that enrich your paper.

Selecting the right competition law research paper topic is a critical step in producing a compelling and impactful academic work. By identifying your interests, conducting thorough research, defining your objectives, and considering practical implications, you can narrow down your choices and choose a topic that aligns with your academic goals and contributes meaningfully to the field of competition law. Remember to seek guidance from faculty and peers, access credible resources, and stay open to exploration as you embark on your research journey.

How to Write a Competition Law Research Paper

Writing a competition law research paper requires a systematic approach that combines legal analysis, economic insights, and critical thinking. As law students delve into the complexities of competition law, they must effectively communicate their findings and arguments in a well-structured and coherent manner. This section provides valuable guidance on how to write a compelling competition law research paper, from planning and conducting research to structuring the paper and presenting the analysis effectively.

• Define Your Research Question : At the outset, clearly define your research question or thesis statement. Your research question should be specific, focused, and aligned with the objectives of your study. It serves as the guiding compass throughout the writing process and ensures that your paper remains cohesive and on track.
• Conduct Thorough Research : Competition law research papers require a comprehensive examination of legal texts, court decisions, academic literature, and economic data. Conduct thorough research using authoritative sources to gather relevant information, legal precedents, and empirical evidence to support your arguments.
• Create an Outline : Before diving into writing, create a detailed outline that outlines the structure of your paper. An outline helps organize your thoughts, provides a logical flow to your arguments, and ensures that you cover all essential aspects of your research.
• Introduction : The introduction should provide context for your research topic, present the research question, and outline the scope and objectives of your paper. Engage your readers with a compelling opening and highlight the significance of your research in the context of competition law.
• Literature Review : Conduct a thorough literature review to situate your research within the existing body of scholarship on competition law. Identify key theories, legal principles, and economic concepts that inform your research and highlight any gaps in the literature that your paper aims to address.
• Legal Analysis : Present a detailed legal analysis of the relevant competition law principles, statutes, and court decisions that are central to your research question. Analyze how these legal frameworks apply to the specific issues or cases you are examining. Use clear and precise legal language while supporting your analysis with authoritative sources.
• Economic Analysis : If your research involves economic aspects, provide an economic analysis that complements your legal analysis. Integrate economic concepts, such as market power, consumer welfare, and efficiency, into your arguments. Use empirical data, economic models, and economic theory to support your findings.
• Case Studies : Consider incorporating case studies or real-world examples to illustrate your arguments and demonstrate how competition law principles are applied in practice. Case studies provide valuable insights and strengthen the practical relevance of your research.
• Antitrust Policy Implications : Discuss the policy implications of your research findings. Consider how your analysis informs antitrust policy, enforcement practices, and potential legislative reforms. Offer practical recommendations for policymakers and competition authorities based on your research.
• Conclusion : In the conclusion, restate your research question and summarize the main findings of your paper. Emphasize the significance of your research and its contribution to the field of competition law. Discuss any limitations of your study and propose areas for further research.
• Citations and References : Ensure that you use proper citations and references throughout your paper to acknowledge the sources of your information and ideas. Follow the appropriate citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, as required by your academic institution.
• Review and Revise : Writing a competition law research paper is an iterative process. After completing the first draft, review your paper for clarity, coherence, and consistency. Revise your arguments, strengthen your analysis, and ensure that your paper adheres to academic standards.
• Seek Feedback : Seek feedback from professors, mentors, or peers to get valuable insights and suggestions for improvement. Feedback from others can help refine your arguments, clarify your writing, and enhance the overall quality of your research paper.

Writing a competition law research paper requires a rigorous approach that integrates legal analysis, economic insights, and scholarly research. By defining a clear research question, conducting thorough research, and structuring your paper effectively, you can craft a compelling and impactful research paper that contributes to the vibrant field of competition law. Through careful writing and presentation of your analysis, you can convey your expertise, critical thinking, and understanding of complex legal issues to your readers.

iResearchNet’s Custom Research Paper Writing Services

At iResearchNet, we understand the challenges that law students face when tasked with writing a competition law research paper. The field of competition law is dynamic and complex, requiring a deep understanding of legal principles, economic theories, and real-world applications. We recognize the importance of producing high-quality research papers that not only meet academic standards but also contribute to the advancement of competition law knowledge. To support students in their academic journey, we offer custom competition law research paper writing services that cater to their unique needs and requirements.

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers : At iResearchNet, we pride ourselves on having a team of expert writers who possess advanced degrees in law and related fields. Our writers are well-versed in competition law and have a keen understanding of legal principles and economic concepts. With their expertise, they can deliver comprehensive and well-researched papers that meet the highest academic standards.
• Custom Written Works : We believe in providing personalized solutions to our clients. Each competition law research paper is custom written based on the specific requirements and instructions provided by the student. Our writers conduct thorough research, analyze legal and economic aspects, and craft original papers that address the unique research questions and objectives of each client.
• In-Depth Research : Competition law research papers require in-depth research and analysis. Our writers have access to extensive academic databases, legal texts, court decisions, and economic data, enabling them to gather credible and relevant information for each paper. We ensure that our research papers are comprehensive, well-supported, and up-to-date.
• Custom Formatting : Academic formatting is a crucial aspect of research papers. Our writers are proficient in various citation styles, including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, and Harvard. They meticulously adhere to the specified formatting guidelines, ensuring that each paper is presented professionally and in accordance with the academic requirements.
• Top Quality : At iResearchNet, we prioritize quality above all else. Our dedicated quality assurance team reviews each research paper to ensure accuracy, coherence, and adherence to the client’s instructions. We aim to deliver research papers that demonstrate thorough analysis, critical thinking, and a deep understanding of competition law.
• Customized Solutions : We understand that each competition law research paper is unique, requiring individualized attention and focus. Our writers work closely with clients to understand their research objectives, preferences, and specific areas of interest. This collaborative approach allows us to deliver customized solutions that align with each student’s academic goals.
• Flexible Pricing : We offer competitive and transparent pricing for our custom competition law research paper writing services. Our pricing model is designed to accommodate students with varying budget constraints. We believe in providing value for money by offering high-quality research papers at affordable rates.
• Short Deadlines : We recognize that students often face tight deadlines when completing their research papers. At iResearchNet, we are equipped to handle urgent orders with short deadlines, delivering high-quality papers within as little as three hours. Our fast turnaround ensures that students can meet their submission deadlines without compromising on quality.
• Timely Delivery : We understand the importance of timely delivery for students. Our team is committed to delivering completed research papers within the agreed-upon deadlines. We value punctuality and ensure that clients receive their papers promptly, allowing them ample time for review and revision if needed.
• 24/7 Support : Our customer support team is available 24/7 to assist clients with any queries, concerns, or requests. Whether you need to track your order, communicate with your assigned writer, or seek updates on your paper’s progress, our support team is always ready to provide prompt assistance.
• Absolute Privacy : At iResearchNet, we prioritize the privacy and confidentiality of our clients. All personal information and communication are kept strictly confidential, and we do not disclose any client details to third parties. We use secure encryption technology to safeguard client data and ensure a safe and secure environment for transactions.
• Easy Order Tracking : Our user-friendly platform allows clients to easily track the progress of their orders. You can stay informed about the status of your research paper, communicate with your writer, and access completed drafts conveniently through our website.
• Money Back Guarantee : We are confident in the quality of our services, and we offer a money-back guarantee to ensure client satisfaction. If a client is not satisfied with the delivered research paper or if it does not meet the specified requirements, we provide a refund as per our money-back policy.

At iResearchNet, we are dedicated to supporting law students in their academic pursuits by offering custom competition law research paper writing services that cater to their unique needs. Our team of expert writers, commitment to quality, and personalized approach ensure that each research paper is crafted to the highest academic standards and contributes to the advancement of competition law knowledge. With our reliable and efficient services, students can confidently embark on their competition law journey, knowing that they have a trusted partner in iResearchNet.

Unleash the Potential of Your Research with iResearchNet

Are you a law student looking to excel in the field of competition law research? Do you find yourself grappling with complex legal principles and economic concepts while writing your competition law research paper? Look no further! iResearchNet is here to empower your academic journey and unleash the full potential of your competition law research.

Unleash the potential of your competition law research with iResearchNet’s custom research paper writing services. Our expert guidance, personalized approach, and commitment to quality empower you to excel in your academic pursuits. Let us be your trusted partner in navigating the complexities of competition law and crafting research papers that leave a lasting impact. Take the next step in your competition law journey with iResearchNet, and watch your academic achievements soar to new heights. Get started today and experience the difference!

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Writing Competition

The  Harvard Law Review  is composed of second- and third-year law students who are selected via a six-day writing competition at the end of each academic year. The Review strongly encourages all students to participate in the writing competition, which consists of two parts:

• Subcite: this portion, worth 50% of the competition score, requires students to perform a technical and substantive edit of an excerpt from an unpublished article
• Case Comment : this portion, also worth 50%, requires students to describe and analyze a recent case

The competition uses a closed universe of materials provided to all competition-takers; no additional outside research of any kind is allowed or required. The use of any form of Artificial Intelligence during the competition is also strictly prohibited.

Based on the competition, fifty-four second-year students are invited to join the Review each year, including:

• Twenty selected based solely on competition scores
• Seven (one from each 1L section) selected based on an equally weighted combination of competition scores and first-year grades
• Three (from any section) selected based on an equally weighted combination of competition scores and first-year grades
• Twenty-four selected through an anonymous holistic review (see below for details)

The  Review  is committed to a diverse and inclusive membership and encourages all students to participate in the writing competition. Harvard Law School students who are interested in joining the  Review  must write the competition at the end of their first year, even if they plan to take time off during law school or are pursuing a joint degree and plan to spend time at another graduate school.

Timeline & Resources

The 2024 Competition will take place from Sunday, May 12 to Saturday, May 18 . Writing competition tips and Q&A sessions will be held in early and mid-April.

Registration will open in April 2024. We expect to invite editors to join Volume 139 over the course of several days in late July. Orientation for new editors is scheduled for the week of July 22nd and will take place remotely. Volume 139 will resume a past practice of an in-person Orientation for half a day near the start of the Fall 2024 Semester. Editors are expected to be fully available during this time. In August, editors will have Law Review assignments, but these assignments can be completed simultaneously with other commitments (internships, events, travel, etc.).

For more information about the competition, the following resources are available:

• The 2024 Application and Information Packet . The application information packet is designed to provide some specific guidance about approaching the case comment and subcite portions of the competition. Please note that the sample competition submissions included in the packet are merely representative and are by no means definitive examples.
• Tips Session and Q&A. Video of our April 1, 2024 writing competition tips session and our April 11, 2024 subcite Q & A session is available on our YouTube channel. The. This questions and answers document summarizes the Q&A portion of the April 13, 2023 session.
• Factsheet: This document responds to common questions and concerns we have heard.
• Sample Schedules: This includes a variety of writing competition schedules used by current editors.
• FAQ on Accommodations . See below for more information on disabilities and accommodations.

Competition & Membership Policies

Holistic consideration.

Applicants will have the opportunity to convey aspects of their identity which have led to the development of character qualities or unique abilities that can contribute to the Law Review , including but not limited to their racial or ethnic identity, disability status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. Applicants can do so by submitting an additional expository statement.  Statements will be considered by the Selection Committee only after grading of the competition has been completed. Statements will remain anonymous and will not be evaluated for quality of writing or editing, nor will they be assigned a numerical score.

Applicants are welcome to draft their expository statements before the competition week begins, and the prompt for the 200-word statement is as follows:

“You are strongly encouraged to use the space below to submit a typed expository statement of no more than 200 words. This statement may identify and describe aspects of your identity which have impacted your development of certain character qualities or unique abilities that can serve as an asset to the Law Review and are not fully captured by the categories on the previous page, including, but not limited to, racial or ethnic identity, socioeconomic background, disability (physical, intellectual, cognitive/ neurological, psychiatric, sensory, developmental, or other), gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, country of origin or international status, religious identity or expression, undergraduate institution(s), age, academic or career trajectory prior to law school, military status, cultural background, or parental/caretaker status. Additionally or alternatively, you may use this statement to identify and describe areas of academic or scholarly interest, career goals, or any other element of your identity that you would bring to your work on the Law Review .

Statements will be considered only after grading of the subcite and case comment sections of the competition has been completed. Statements will not be evaluated for quality of writing or editing, nor will they be assigned a numerical score. No applicant will be penalized in any way for not submitting an optional statement, and all optional statements are completely confidential.”

Deferral & Leave

Harvard Law Review will invite students to join Vol. 139 in mid-July. Students invited to join Vol. 138 who are taking a full-year leave of absence from HLS will be allowed to defer their membership in Law Review for the year. They may then join the Law Review as members of Vol. 140 in fall 2025 and serve as editors for two years. Editors typically serve for two full academic years to ensure ample time for training, acclimation to their roles on the Review , and opportunities to make collective decisions about our work.

Students invited to join Vol. 139 who are taking a fall-semester leave of absence from HLS are encouraged to still join as editors with Vol. 139. If joining with Vol. 139, editors will be expected to complete Law Review work during the fall, even though they are on leave from HLS. They will then serve as editors for two years. Alternatively, students taking a one-semester leave may wait to join until fall of the following year (fall 2025); in that case, they will have no Law Review obligations during the 2024-2025 academic year and will participate as Law Review editors for a single year.

Transfer Students

Prospective transfer students may take the competition at the same time as Harvard Law School 1Ls. Prospective transfer students are selected on the same anonymous grading basis as Harvard 1Ls and are eligible for 44 of the spots on the Review (in other words, all spots besides the 10 allotted to Harvard 1Ls for whom first-year grades play a role). Prospective transfer students may submit an anonymized, unofficial transcript when their 1L grades are released if they would like their grades to be considered in the Law Review ’s holistic review process. The Review ’s membership decisions do not affect the admissions decisions of Harvard Law School.

Recognizing that the competition schedule poses unique challenges to prospective transfer applicants, the Review also allows transfer students to take the competition at the end of their 2L year. Up to four spots are available for such students. However, no student may attempt the competition more than once, and this option is only available to transfer students who did not previously take the competition. Like prospective transfer students, rising third-year students may submit their grades, but they will not be eligible for the 10 slots that incorporate first-year grades.

Prospective 1L transfer students should email [email protected] for information about registering.

SJD Students

SJD students at Harvard Law School may serve as editors of the Law Review . To join, SJDs take the same writing competition as JD students and are eligible for 44 of the editorial positions (all spots besides those allotted to JD 1Ls for whom first-year grades play a role). SJDs should take the competition only if they are certain they have at least two years remaining in their program of study. Additionally, as with all candidates, SJDs are permitted to participate in the writing competition only once.

Disabilities & Accommodations

The Harvard Law Review is firmly committed to providing accommodations for students with disabilities and handles requests on a case-by-case basis. The Law Review is an independent entity and thus has its own accommodations system separate from Harvard Law School’s Dean of Students Office.

Accommodations requests can be submitted between Monday, March 11th and Friday, April 12th and will be processed on a rolling basis. Students are strongly encouraged to submit their accommodation requests as soon as possible even if they are not yet certain they will take the competition. Please see our answers to FAQ on accommodations to learn more about what documentation is needed.

The Law Review strives to keep information regarding disabilities and accommodations as confidential as possible. Nothing about your accommodations application or your receipt of accommodations will be part of the Competition entry that is considered in the selection process. All Competition grading is doubly anonymized. Jennifer Heath, a non-student HLR staff member manages the logistics related to our accommodations process, and accommodations recommendations to the Law Review are made by our testing consultant, Dr. Loring Brinckerhoff.

👇 Recommended LLS Courses to Excel in this Opportunity​

Home » Opportunities & Events » Research Paper Writing Competition by Lawctopus Law School (Online; Cash Prizes worth Rs. 7.5k, Guaranteed Publication, E-Certificates, Free Courses) : Register by May 9

Research Paper Writing Competition by Lawctopus Law School (Online; Cash Prizes worth Rs. 7.5k, Guaranteed Publication, E-Certificates, Free Courses) : Register by May 9

• Apr 29, 2023

• One Comment

Lawctopus Law School is organizing a Legal Research Paper Writing Competition for law students, research scholars, and professionals, inviting them to utilize their creative thinking, legal knowledge & writing skills to submit original and unpublished Research Papers.

About the Competition

The legal profession functions on the maxim verba volant, scripta manent, which means ‘spoken words fly away, written words remain.’

Legal Research & Writing is one of the most important skill for a Law Student to grasp to become a good Legal Professional. Of late, the number of publications in the CV/Resume of a Law Student/Graduate is considered by recruiters to ensure they hire a skilled intern/employee.

Lawctopus Law School invites law students, research scholars, and professionals to this Legal Research Paper Writing Competition to utilize their creative thinking, legal knowledge & writing skills to submit original and unpublished Research Papers.

If you do well in this competition, we have a lot of exciting prizes for you. If not , we will let you learn all about Legal Research & Writing with us. So, what are you waiting for? Hurry up and register!

Click here to register for the competition

Theme of the paper.

The submission should be on any theme relating to Law.

Eligibility

Undergraduate and graduate students, practitioners, academicians, research scholars, or anyone studying or working in the field of law.

Submissions may be co-authored by a maximum of two authors .

General Guidelines

• The submissions must primarily deal with the subject areas of law.
• Only full papers submitted on or before the deadline shall be considered for the competition.
• Manuscripts must have an Abstract not exceeding 250 words, along with 4 keywords highlighting the theme of the research.
• Manuscript can be authored by up to 2 co-authors.
• Plagiarism beyond 15% will result in immediate disqualification from the competition.

• The manuscripts should not have been published previously. All works must be original, unpublished, and must not be pending for review before any other journal.
• The body of the manuscript must not contain any personal details of the author, so as to enable anonymity.

Specific Guidelines

Citations and References

• All relevant sources should be duly acknowledged as footnotes.
• The citation style in the manuscripts submitted for the competition shall be in conformity with the ILI Rules of footnoting available here .

Manuscripts

• Word Limit: 3000-5000 words including footnotes.
• The manuscript should be submitted in a Google Doc and edit access should be given to [email protected].
• The name of the Google Doc should be in the given format only: LLS_LRW_Name. (Example: LLS_LRW_Ram)
• The manuscript should be accompanied by a cover page containing the name of the author(s), affiliation and contact details . Such details should not be written elsewhere in the abstract or body of the paper.
• The title of the manuscript should be appropriate.

Formatting Guidelines:

• Font size: 12 (main text), 14 (heading), 10 (footnotes)
• Font style: Times New Roman
• The Bibliography must be included along with the manuscripts.
• Text Alignment: Justified
• Line spacing: 1.5 (main text), 1.0 (footnotes), Use 1-inch margins on all sides.
• Page borders shall not be used.

Rewards and Prizes

1st Prize: Cash Prize of INR 3,500/- + 70% off on any LLS’ Live Courses + Free enrollment in 1 LLS’ Self Paced Course + Certificate of Merit + Guaranteed Publication

2nd Prize : Cash Prize of INR 2,500/- + 50% off on any LLS’ Live Courses + Free enrollment in 1 LLS’ Self Paced Course + Certificate of Merit + Guaranteed Publication

3rd Prize: Cash Prize of INR 1,500/ – + 40% off on any LLS’ Live Courses + Free enrollment in 1 LLS’ Self Paced Course + Certificate of Merit

For all Participants: Certificate of Participation + 20% off on any LLS’ Live Courses + 20% off on any LLS’ Self Paced Course

Submission Guidelines

All the participants will receive the submission link on their respective email addresses after successful registration. Therefore, kindly fill in all correct details during registration.

Important Dates

• Early Bird Registration: Apr 20, 2023
• Last date for Registration: May 9, 2023
• Last date for Manuscript submission: May 20, 2023
• Declaration of Results: May 31, 2023

Registration Fees

• Early Bird Registration: INR 1,000/-
• Single author registration: INR 1,200/-
• Co-author up to two registration: INR 2,000/-

Contact Information

For any queries, please write to [email protected] with the subject line “ Query for Legal Research Paper Writing Competition ”.

Join Our Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions WhatsApp Group

Get Daily Updates

Join Our Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions Telegram Group

Get an Internship

One Response

Add a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement

Get Lawctopus in Your Inbox!!

Join 150,000+ people. get #lawschoolready.

🎓 Apply for SLS Nagpur's B.A. LL.B. and B.B.A. LL.B. Programmes via SLAT 2024. Applications closing on 12th April!

For Advertisements on Lawctopus

• +91 90235 43927
• [email protected]
• Office hours: 11AM - 7PM

For Lawctopus Law School

• +91 80474 94091
• [email protected]

Download our eBook on

Get An Internship

Research Guide for Law Co-curricular Organizations: Write-on Competition

• Quick Links
• Topic Selection
• Tips for Research and Writing
• Cite Checking
• Write-on Competition

Bluebooking Resources

• Moot Court/Trial Team
• Sports Negotiation

Things to Do Before Competition Registration Opens

1. complete the procertas bluebooking modules 1 & 2 ( list of all skills covered in each training module ). also suggest completing bluebooking module 3 if time allows., don't have a procertas account or forget your password request one here ., exercises don't have to be completed all at once, you can work on them over time and also refer back to them during the actual competition., 2. watch recording of the  ready, set, write-on  session  held on april 11, 2024..

• Ready, Set, Write-on Competition Overview Slides
• Ready, Set, Write-on Session Slides

3. Watch the  Journals + Competition Teams Information Session   held on April 14th 

4. attend the  how to write a casenote session  on friday, may 10th on zoom (will be recorded), 5. check out the bluebooking resources tab for more resources to get you ready for the editing test portion of the competition., casenote examples.

• Annotated Write-On Casenote Example from a previous year, condensed to show only the portions required by the 2023 Summer Competition (Background and Critical Analysis) and tips for formatting titles, footnotes, and other aspects of the assignment. NOTE: this example is not completely free of errors.

Casenote Examples from Villanova Journals and Law Review:

Note that the published casenotes are full casenotes--for the Write-On Competition you are asked to draft only the Background and Critical Analysis sections.

Writing Resources

How Students Benefit From Journal Membership

Timeline for Summer 2024 Competition

Ready, set, write-on session : april 11, 2024 .

• Recording linked above
• Representatives from the law review provided an overview of both the law review and the write-on competition which is how staff writers are selected for journal membership
• Will provide details about all components of the competition, due dates and other relevant information
• Profs. Corso, Kearney, and Voegele reviewed tips for organizing and writing your competition submission

Write-On Registration: April 11th  @ 5 PM - April 18th @ 11:59 PM

• You must register here during this time period to participate in the competition
• You will be assigned a number to ensure your submissions are anonymous. The numbers are assigned manually so registrations received after business hours will be processed the following morning--please do not resubmit the registration form multiple times. 
• You'll be enrolled in a Blackboard course after registration--materials for the competition will be posted there once the competition starts (see dates below)

Journals + Competition Teams Information Session   (Held April 14th )

• Representatives from the Journals, Moot Court, Trial Team and Negotiations Teams discussed their organizations, their summer competitions and their membership selection process.
• Looking for the registration forms for Moot Court or Trial Team? Check out these links 
• 2024 Moot Court Summer Competition Registration Registration open through Sunday, April 21st at 11:59 PM Competition will open May 12th @ 9 AM and writing period closes May 26th @ 11:59 PM. Oral arguments will take place June 8th and 9th.
• 2024 National Trial Team Registration Registration open through April 24, 2024

How to Write a Casenote Session  - May 10th via Zoom

This session will be hosted by Villanova Law Review's Executive Editor, Villanova Law Review's Managing Editor of Research and Writing,  and Villanova Law Review's Managing Editor of Operations. The session will give students an idea of what submissions should include and tips for managing content on a digital platform.

In addition to the "How to" session, there will be a Q&A after the meeting to answer any questions you might have about writing a casenote or the summer competition generally.

May 12th @ 9 AM; Competition Begins

• Blackboard page will appear at this time

Write-on Competition Due Dates:

May 19, 2024 @ 3 pm: editing portion of the writing competition due, may 26, 2024 @ 3 pm: abbreviated casenote portion of the writing competition due.

Questions?  

Please contact the competition email:   [email protected]

More about the selection process for the Law Review and the other two journals can be found in the  Student Handbook . 

See the Bluebooking Resources tab for additional materials

• << Previous: Perma.cc
• Next: Bluebooking Resources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 9:25 AM
• URL: https://libguides.law.villanova.edu/JournalsGuide

Law School Papers and Law Review Notes & Comments - Research Strategies

About this guide, looking for a topic, making a research plan, paths to consider.

• Articles - Legal
• Articles - Other
• Cases & Statutes as Springboards
• Legislative Documents

This guide covers some key resources for doing scholarly legal research research, and is for USF law students who are writing major papers or law review comments or notes.

If you are a USF law student and would like personalized advice on your paper or law review project, you can make an appointment with a Zief Library research librarian to discuss research strategies and techniques. 

Start with this book. Chapter 2 ("Inspiration: Choosing a  Subject & Developing a Thesis") is filled with practical advice on identifying a subject you care about, narrowing your topic, and finding a promising thesis.

For more places to find inspiration, see the Zief Library research guide on finding a topic .

Map out a tentative research plan before you plunge in. Don't be afraid to go off on potentially useful tangents, but check your plan from time to time to make sure you are not going too far off track. If your focus changes, you can always revise your plan.

As your research progresses, use your plan to keep track of the sources you checked and the searches you ran, so that you can recreate successful searches, and so that you don't repeat work unnecessarily. Change the plan as needed as you discover new lines of inquiry and new materials.

Mind-mapping software can help you brainstorm, plan, and keep track of your research.

• Mind & Concept Mapping Software A list of mind-mapping software options from the Wikipedia.

For most projects, you'll want to —

Find scholarly legal commentary in books and articles. Look for:

• the broad rules that apply to the narrower issue or case you are writing about, and for the major principles underlying those broad rules.
• creative ways to apply existing rules, theories, etc., in new, original ways to the problems or issues you've identified.
• controversy: for powerful statements of the point of view you do not agree with; for someone to argue with.
• someone whose ideas spur you to new ideas.
• anything that will challenge your point of view and help you hone your thesis.

Identify key primary legal sources (cases, statutes, regulations) and use them to find more commentary other relevant primary sources.

Consider finding scholarship from outside the law ( e.g. , from history, political science, sociology, psychology, medicine, economics, etc.).

Find original reports and statistical studies (rather than the news articles that mention them).

In reviewing other scholars' works, look for what will challenge you and your point of view, as well as what supports your thesis.

• Next: Books >>
• Last Updated: Oct 10, 2023 10:41 AM
• URL: https://legalresearch.usfca.edu/ResearchingPapers
• Web Feedback
• Contact USF

The Competition Law Hub

A platform for independent research into competition law and policy, computational antitrust for public enforcement.

On 23 April 2024, Vicky Robertson discussed the use of computational antitrust tools in the public enforcement…

The Future of Digital Merger Control

On 18 April 2024, the European Commission hosted a celebratory conference on the 20th anniversary of the…

Antitrust, Strategic Foresight and the Twin Transition

On 5 April 2024, Vicky Robertson participated in the 40th CLaSF workshop, held at the University of…

Vienna Competition Law Days 2024

The Market Definition Notice 2024

Insights into the Vienna Competition Law Days 2023

• Next »

Charting a Greener Future for EU Competition Law

Graz Law Working Paper Series

Publications.

Kodex Competition Law

Interactions between EU Competition Law and Data Protection

Theories of Harm in Digital Mergers

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• History by Period
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Regional and National History
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Language Evolution
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Browse content in Religion
• Christianity
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Company and Commercial Law
• Comparative Law

Competition Law

• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Financial Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Legal System and Practice
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Anaesthetics
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Forensic Medicine
• History of Medicine
• Medical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Paediatrics
• Browse content in Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Physical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Browse content in Computing
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Environmental Sustainability
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Analysis
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Classical Mechanics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Browse content in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Health Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Human Evolution
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Schools Studies
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Environment
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Economic Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Sociology
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Security Studies
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Research and Information
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Browse content in Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Migration Studies
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Journals A to Z
• Books on Oxford Academic

Read a chapter from Regulating Big Tech

Explore OUP’s Higher Education Resource: Competition policy and economics from Competition Law (10th edn ) by Richard Whish and David Bailey

Sign up for free email alerts to get the latest research straight to your inbox.

Affiliations

• Copyright © 2024
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

INBA’s Legal Article Writing Competition 2024

The INBA Legal Article writing competition offers a Platform for law students and legal Scholar to address contemporary issues and contribute to social empowerment. This Article writing competition will allow students to enhance their skills in an easy way through research. The competition aims to develop interest among students to explore and analyze various legal issues, legal aspect, boom and bane of Artificial intelligence. It will provide a platform for students to remember and learn New Bills, Emerging law issues, recent judgements and about the AI.

Eligibility

• Law Students (Both undergraduate and postgraduate),research Scholar from recognized college/ university.
• Co-authorship is not allowed

How to Submit?

Participant shall send their articles to [email protected] . The Subject should be Tittle of article with add on INBA legal Article writing competition

General Guidelines

• The copies must be submitted in PDF Format. In case two email are sent by the participant, the copy of the draft sent last will be considered for evaluation.
• The Font should be Times New Roman, Size 12, and line spacing 1.5.
• In the Article, 15 % plagiarism is allowed for the participants.
• Word limit- 500 to 700 words

Certificates & Rewards

Winner will be decided on the basis of views and content.

• Winner Prizes: 1 st Position Rs 3000
• 2 nd Position Rs 2000
• 3 rd Position Rs 1000

Important Dates

Declaration of Result: 30 June 2024

Contact Information

In case of any queries, kindly write to [email protected] or

Contact 011-49036141

Event Details

Date/time :, categories :.

• INBA Events

International & Comparative Competition Law Research: Web Resources

• Getting Started
• Web Resources

There are numerous free websites that can assist in researching the areas of international and comparative antitrust. Listed at right and below are sites with links to national competition authorities, blogs, news developments, and other materials of interest.

Competition & Consumer Protection Authorities Worldwide

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division offers an alphabetized list of links to antitrust authorities worldwide. The Federal Trade Commission offers a similar link . 

European Union Competition Cases

Information on EU competition cases, including case databases and archives, is available through the EU Commission's website on competition  policy . Pull-down menus for the antitrust, cartels, mergers, state aid, and liberalisation tabs all contain separate links to cases.  The European Court of Justice's CURIA database also allows for searching limited to competition cases.

Note that the Law Library has a print subscription to the Common Market Law Reports (CMLR), which provides weekly coverage of EU case law .  The CMLR also includes the monthly CMLR Antitrust Reports and Index .  The latter is shelved at KJE 6456 .A7 C66 on the 5th floor. 

WWW Resources

• APEC Competition Policy & Law Database This database provides access to information pertaining to the competition policies and laws of the 21 APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) member countries. Sponsored by Chinese Taipei's Fair Trade Commission.
• College of Europe: Global Competition Law Centre Working Papers The College of Europe's Global Competition Law Centre "aims at promoting cutting-edge research in competition law and economics" and posts a working paper series on its website. Papers are submitted in French or English.
• Competition Law Forum of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law The Forum is a center for European competition and antitrust law/policy at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (London). Some of the website materials are accessible only to members, but some are open-access and include research papers.
• European Commission: Competition This is the European Commission's website dedicated to the topic of competition. The site includes links to information about antitrust, cartels, mergers, and state aid, as well as the EU's competition policies and activity at an international level. The site also provides overviews of various economic sectors, such as consumer goods, energy and environment, motor vehicles, and pharmaceuticals.
• Foreign Trade Information System (SICE): Competition Policy This page provides links to competition legislation/policy for countries belonging to the OAS (Organization of American States).
• GlobaLex This website, hosted and published by NYU's Hauser Global Law School Program, provides articles on researching law in a multitude of jurisdictions. Some articles focus on locating English translations and/or commercial law. Always check for the most recent versions of the articles, which tend to be updated periodically.
• International Competition Network According to the Network's website, its mission "is to advocate the adoption of superior standards and procedures in competition policy around the world, formulate proposals for procedural and substantive convergence, and seek to facilitate effective international cooperation to the benefit of member agencies, consumers and economies worldwide." The website contains a full documents library.
• Law Library of Congress - Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases This report from the Law Library of Congress provides a comparative analysis of antitrust and competition cases concerning the pharmaceutical industry in 12 jurisdictions. It also provides provides information on the competition law frameworks and enforcement agencies in 7 additional nations.
• Lex Mundi: Guides to Doing Business This is a large collection of English-language overviews of conducting business in various foreign jurisdictions. The authors are members of Lex Mundi, a global organization of attorneys representing over 100 countries. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Honduras are some of the countries featured in the collection. A number of the Guides include discussions on antitrust/competition.
• OECD: Competition The OECD's website on competition includes descriptive pages on sub-topics, including cartels and anti-competitive agreements, mergers, and competition enforcement practices. The page also includes a link to the "Competition Assessment Toolkit."
• OECD: Country Reviews of Competition Policy Frameworks This is a collection of in-depth reviews of competition policies in various countries. According to the web page, "These reviews assess how each country deals with competition and regulatory issues, from the soundness of its competition law to the structure and effectiveness of its competition institutions."
• U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division: International Program The DOJ Antitrust Division's site dedicated to its international initiatives includes links to policy speeches, press releases, various reports, and the texts of international antitrust cooperation agreements.
• White & Case: News Global law firm White & Case regularly publishes news on its website pertaining to developments in international competition law.
• WIPO Lex Part of the World Intellectual Property Organization's website, this is an international database of IP and competition laws. The database is searchable by country and subject. Some English translations are available.
• AntitrustWatch
• Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog
• Antitrust Today
• AntitrustConnect Blog
• Competition Bulletin
• European Law Blog (Category: Competition Law)
• JUSTIA: Most Popular Antitrust Blawgs
• Kluwer Competition Law Blog
• International & Comparative Antitrust Research Sources (2014)

The following handout was prepared in the spring of 2014 for an LUC Law course on international and comparative antitrust.  The course was taught by Dr. Maciej Bernatt , a visiting professor from the University of Warsaw.  

• << Previous: Databases
• Last Updated: Apr 19, 2024 10:16 AM
• URL: https://lawlibguides.luc.edu/internationalcompetitionlaw

Legal Writing Competitions: By Due Date

• By Due Date
• Additional Resources

Legal Writing Competitions

Legal writing competitions are a great way to earn recognition, get your work published, and even earn cash! The Legal Research Center has compiled a list of legal writing competitions, which you can browse by topic or by deadline month.

Some competitions require you to compose a new paper, while others call for the submission of a recently published paper, such as a law review article. Need help developing a topic? See our guides on  Developing a Topic for Research Papers and  Law Review Resources for more information.

This list is updated as new information is received, but note that deadlines and writing topics often change from year to year. Make sure to check each link for the most up-to-date information.

Writing Competitions: By Due Date

• Grammy Entertainment Law Initiative Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $10,000 tuition-based scholarship, tickets to GRAMMY Awards Topic: Legal issues facing the music industry
• Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (JOLT) Student Note Competition Deadline: June 9, 2023 Prize: $1700 Topic: Topics may include, but are not limited to, cybercrime, biotechnology, space law, entertainment and news media, comparative legal approaches to intellectual property, the law of the Internet, and technology in the public interest.
• Asian Pacific American Bar Association Educational Fund Robert T. Matsui Annual Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 ; contact [email protected] Prize: $5,000 Topic: Submissions should address a legal topic of importance to the Asian Pacific American community. Eligibility: The Competition is open to all law students and anyone who graduated from law school within the last five years (i.e., 2018 or later) in the United States.
• NYIPLA Honorable William Conner Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,500 Topic: An entry must be directed to any of the following subject areas related to intellectual property, i.e., patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, unfair trade practices, antitrust, and data security/privacy issues. Eligibility: All entrants must be law school students currently enrolled in a J.D. or LL.M. program (day or evening) in an accredited law school in the United States.
• International Refugee Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $100 Topic: Papers may address any topic related to international law and refugees, stateless persons, internally-displaced persons (IDPs), and/or forced migrants. Eligibility: Student authors must be enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate degree program at an accredited university at the time of submission.
• University of Pennsylvania Law Review Dorothy E. Roberts Public Interest Essay Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,000 cash prize; $5,000 grant to support public interest work or the work of a non-profit organization or pro bono clinic Topic: Submissions must focus on a specific legal issue within the realm of public interest law, including any issue relating to social justice or advancing the general welfare and good of the public. In addition, the author must include a brief grant proposal for $5,000 to support public interest work related to the essay topic. Topics can be local, state, national, or international in breadth or impact. Eligibility: The competition is open to all current law students (Classes of 2023, 2024, and 2025) from any ABA-accredited American law school as well as recent graduates of such institutions from the classes of 2015 – 2022. Submissions are limited to one per person and must be an original, unpublished academic essay.
• Brooks Kushman Law Student Intellectual Property Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Trademark or patent law Eligibility: Open to any law student in good standing and currently enrolled in an ABA-accredited law school, and who is a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States.
• ABA Business Law Section Mendes Hershman Writing Contest Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,000 Topic: "Business Law" is a broad category. Without attempting to define the area precisely, the subject is intended to include matters within law school curricula in courses entitled: Eligibility: Author of the paper must be a student enrolled in an ABA-accredited law school’s J.D. program, in good standing, at the time of submission more... less... Agency; Bankruptcy; Business Law; Business Organizations; Commercial Law; Consumer Law Contracts; Corporate Finance; Corporate Governance; Corporations; Creditors Rights; Employment Law; Financial Institutions; Insurance Law; Oil and Gas Law; Professional Responsibility; Remedies; Secured Transactions; Securities Regulations; Uniform Commercial Code
• Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Human Rights Essay Award Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: A scholarship to cover tuition for the Program of Advanced Studies in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law for either the Diploma or Certificate of Attendance options Notes: Essay Award Topic for 2023: Equality and Human Rights: Confronting Racial Discrimination Eligibility: Applicants for the Award must hold a law degree and have a demonstrated experience or interest in international human rights law.

Typically Held in January

These competitions have been held in January in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• National Native American Law Students Association Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Topic: All students are encouraged to submit scholarly articles between twenty (20) and fifty (50) pages, either individually or jointly with other students, about Native American legal issues. Eligibility: Competitors must be active, dues-paying members of National NALSA.
• American Society of Legal Writers Scribes Law-Review Award Deadline: January 15, 2023 Notes: Since 1987, Scribes has presented an annual award for the best student-written article in a law review or journal. The Scribes Law-Review Award is presented at the Scribes annual CLE, which is usually held in April.
• Louis Jackson Memorial National Student Writing Competition in Employment and Labor Law Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $3,000 Topic: Employment and labor law
• American College of Legal Medicine Student Writing Competition Deadline: January 28, 2022 Eligibility: All students studying Medicine, Law, Dentistry, Podiatry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Health Science, Healthcare Administration or Public Health are encouraged to compete.
• Center for Alcohol Policy National Essay Contest Deadline: January 28, 2022 Prize: $5,000 Topic: After Prohibition, states generally issued licenses for on-premise and off-premise sale of alcohol. Drinking was thus largely confined to bars, restaurants, the home, and private clubs. Alcohol is now regularly offered in places like salons, grocery stores, clothing stores, and galleries. Is this trend towards ubiquitous availability of alcohol a good one? And is there a new regulatory regime needed to address this trend?
• ABA Section of Antitrust Law Robert Pitofsky Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Antitrust or consumer protection law Eligibility: Open to any law school student in good standing, over the age of 21, who is currently attending an ABA-accredited law school within the United States and its possessions, and who is a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States. Entrants must submit an original article, which has already been published or which is scheduled to be published.
• ABA Antitrust Law Section Harvey Saferstein Consumer Protection Essay Contest Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Consumer protection law
• Federal Bar Association Donald C. Alexander Tax Law Writing Competition Deadline: January 31, 2022 Prize: $2,000 Topic: Federal taxation
• International Trademark Association Ladas Memorial Award Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,250 Topic: Subject of the paper must be trademark law or a matter that directly relates to, or affects, trademarks. Eligibility: Eligible students must be enrolled as either full- or part-time law or graduate students. Eligible papers may include both original unpublished manuscripts and published articles that are submitted to INTA by the submission deadline.
• Baxter Family Competition on Federalism Deadline: TBA for 2025 Prize: $5,000 (CAD) Topic: Federalism: What makes it work (or not!). This broad theme welcomes reflections about the institutional, political and cultural elements that explain successes and failures of federalism, whether small scale or at the macro level. We particularly welcome analyses which explore the potential and pitfalls of cooperative federalism. Cooperative angles are especially encouraged. Eligibility: All undergraduate or graduate students in law or political science students, as well as junior scholars, lawyers or practitioners who graduated in these disciplines with five (5) years of working experience or less, from anywhere around the world.
• Georgetown Institute of International Economic Law Greenwald Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Current issues relevant to international trade law, the jurisprudence of the WTO or regional trade organizations, jurisprudence concerning U.S. trade organizations, an issue relating to the political economy or the efficacy of U.S. or international trade regimes. Eligibility: JD, LLM, and SJD students
• American Constitution Society Constance Baker Motley National Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $3,000 Topic: ACS welcomes all student papers furthering and promoting a progressive vision of the Constitution, law, and public policy. Entrants are encouraged to view this topic broadly, and we welcome submissions on a variety of substantive areas. Examples of possible topics include: census report, civil legal aid, civil liberties, constitutional convention, consumer rights, criminal justice, disability rights, freedom of speech, immigration, indigent defense, money in politics (including judicial elections), labor law, LGBTQ+ rights, privacy, protection of health, safety, and the environment, racial equality, religion, role of state attorneys general, second amendment and guns, separation of powers and federalism, women’s reproductive rights and reproductive freedom, voting and political process, and whistleblower protection. Eligibility: The competition is open to all law students who are current, dues-paying ACS National members.
• American Constitution Society Richard D. Cudahy Writing Competition on Regulatory and Administrative Law Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,500 Notes: Submissions should be focused on American regulatory or administrative law, broadly construed. Appropriate subjects include empirical or comparative analyses of the effectiveness of specific regulatory regimes or deregulation; doctrinal investigations of the development of administrative law rules or principles by courts and administrative agencies and the effects of that development; and normative analyses of how particular regulatory or administrative regimes or deregulation advance or fail to advance values of fairness, participation, and transparency. Eligibility: The competition is open to all lawyers and law students. Practicing lawyers, policymakers, academics, and law students all are encouraged to participate. To be considered for the law student category the author(s) must be currently enrolled in a J.D. or LLM program at a U.S. law school.

March Competitions with February Registration Deadlines

Paper submissions for these competitions are due in March, but registration is required and due in February.

• American College of Coverage Counsel Insurance Law Writing Competition Registration Deadline: TBA for 2024 Submission Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $2,000 Topic: This year’s writing competition asks students to choose one of two sides in a case involving an insurance company and a Texas based business in preparing a motion for partial summary judgment on a specific set of grounds as presented by each party.
• Roy Snell Health Care Regulatory and Compliance Writing Competition Registration Deadline: TBA for 2024 Submission Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Notes: In keeping with Roy Snell’s keen interest in practical, realistic, and user-centered communication, as well as a commitment to efficiency and clarity in writing, this demanding competition requires students to analyze a hypothetical fact pattern (the Competition Problem) involving an organization facing multifaceted health care regulatory/compliance matters and draft two separate internal memoranda to two different recipients within the organization. Students must analyze the facts presented, identify any and all regulatory/compliance concerns, and advise the recipient of the memorandum. Eligibility: The competition is open to all full and part-time law students in J.D. programs who have completed their 1L year. The competition is also open to any student currently enrolled in a Compliance Certification Board (CCB) accredited program.

Typically Held in February

These competitions have been held in February in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Open to 2L and 3L students at any Pennsylvania law school and Rutgers Law. Topic: Under the existing rules of judicial conduct, how might Pennsylvania's courts utilize current communication tools, such as social media, to engage the people of Pennsylvania to instill confidence in the workings of the judicial branch and its decisions?
• ABA Standing Committee on Lawyers’ Professional Liability Ed Mendrzycki Essay Contest Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Topic: This year's hypothetical involves multiple ethical and professional liability concerns that arise when a partner in a law firm is retained to represent a client in several business and real estate matters regarding a series of land acquisitions, and the law firm is contacted by the Department of Justice to assist in the investigation of potential money laundering allegations against the client.
• ABA Antitrust Law Section Privacy and Information Security Committee Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Writing Competition Deadline: February 24, 2024 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Participants are required to submit an original written work on data privacy or cybersecurity law. Eligibility: Contestants need not be a member of the American Bar Association (“ABA”), the Antitrust Law Section ("Section") or the Privacy and Information Security Committee ("Committee") although membership in all is encouraged.
• Epstein Becker Green Health Law Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $4,000 Topic: Papers may address any traditional area of the law as applied to health care (e.g., antitrust, tax, corporate) or areas of law unique to health care (e.g., fraud and abuse, managed care, Medicare/Medicaid, clinical trials, telehealth/telemedicine).
• American Indian Law Review National Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,500 Topic: Any legal issue specifically concerning American Indians or other indigenous peoples. Eligibility: The competition is open to students enrolled in J.D. or graduate law programs at accredited law schools in the United States and Canada as of the competition deadline of Monday, Feb. 28, 2022.
• Sports Lawyers Association Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Notes: Each entrant must be a current law or LLM student and 18 years of age or older, and a member in good standing of the Sports Lawyers Association.
• Society of International Economic Law/JIEL/OUP Essay Prize Deadline: February 28, 2022 Prize: £200, as well as £400 of Oxford University Press book vouchers Topic: Any topic in the field of international economic law
• ABA Forum on Affordable Housing and Community Development Law Student Legal Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Entries should address any legal issue regarding affordable housing, fair housing and/or community development law. Eligibility: Open to all law students who are at the time of entry, (a) enrolled in a law school that is at the time of entry, ABA Accredited, (b) member of the ABA and the Forum, (c) at least 21 years old, and (d) U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
• Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Trandafir Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $2,000 Topic: Any contemporary international business or economic concern. Recent winning submissions have included such topics as recommendations the United States should follow to update its privacy laws to harmonize with international general data protection regulation commitments, why international labor organizations should adopt fair trade as an enforcement mechanism to end labor violations, and why the United States Treasury should wait for Congress to end corporate tax sheltering tactics. Eligibility: All students currently enrolled in law or graduate degree programs.

Typically Held in March

These competitions have been held in March in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• Access To Justice Tech Fellows Legal Tech Fictional Writing Competition Deadline: March 1, 2022 Prize: $1,000 Topic: We’re seeking short fictional stories (1,500 words or less) about how technology is or will impact the legal field and access to justice. The stories are not meant to be academic articles designed for publication in a journal but rather an easily read work of fiction. The topic is fairly broad and can encompass any aspect of the interaction between the law and technological innovation.
• Judge Samuel G. DeSimone Legal Writing Competition Deadline: March 1, 2022 Prize: $3,000.00 Topic: “Given the sweeping ‘Me Too’ movement throughout the nation, should other states join New Jersey and adopt laws similar to S477/A3648, by expanding the two-year civil statute of limitations to seven years for all victims of sex assault, and make the expansion retroactive? Eligibility: The Judge Samuel G. DeSimone Legal Writing Competition is open to full-time and part-time law students who are enrolled in the 2021-2022 academic year in an accredited Law School, who reside in Southern New Jersey.
• Institute for Energy Law Hartrick Scholar Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Any topic related to energy development. This includes, for example, topics concerning oil and gas law, alternative energy resources, energy regulation, and environmental regulation of the energy industries.
• Center for Legal & Court Technology Artificial Intelligence Writing Competition Deadline: March 1, 2022 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Papers must focus on at least one application of these technologies (e.g., Internet of Medical Things devices, facial recognition technology, autonomous systems, social media monitoring, etc.)
• Notre Dame Law School Program on Church, State & Society Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $3,000 Topic: Papers should be focused, broadly, on topics related to church, state & society. For guidance on selecting a topic, students may wish to view our Program website and mission statement: https://churchstate.nd.edu/
• White River Environmental Law Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Any relevant topic in the fields of environmental law, natural resource law, energy law, environmental justice, land use law, animal law, and agricultural law. Eligibility: Current J.D. or LLM students at any ABA-accredited law school.
• Freedom From Religion Foundation Cornelius Vanderbroek Memorial Essay Competition Deadline: June 1, 2023 Prize: $3,500 Topic: As the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has become vital to the global effort to end the pandemic, both government and private employers, as well as some schools, around the country have announced vaccine mandates. Historically, very few employees have claimed religious exemptions from required vaccinations. However, people who oppose COVID-19 vaccines for political or other reasons are now abusing religious exemptions in order to flout vaccine mandates. Against this backdrop lawsuits have surged, challenging vaccine requirements on religious grounds and arguing that religious exemptions to such requirements are required by the First Amendment. Craft an argument that religious exemptions from vaccine requirements are not legally required, addressing constitutional questions as well as other legal issues raised by such mandates.
• Berkeley Technology Law Journal Writing Competition Deadline: March 28, 2022 Prize: $1,000 Topic: A wide variety of topics at the intersection of law and technology, including but not limited to: technology and the public interest, privacy, internet law, intellectual property, antitrust, First Amendment issues, entertainment and news media, telecommunications, biotechnology, and cybercrime. Eligibility: The competition is open to all currently enrolled graduate-level law students (including J.D., L.L.M., and J.S.D. candidates, along with law students outside of the United States).
• ABA Section of Family Law Howard C. Schwab Memorial Essay Contest Registration Deadline: TBA for 2024 Submission Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,500.00 Topic: The subject may be any aspect of family law. Eligibility: Contestants must be J.D. students at ABA-approved law schools who are: second or third-year full-time students; second through fourth-year part-time students; or first-year students enrolled in schools where the subject of family law is part of the first-year curriculum; and citizens or legal permanent residents of the U.S. more... less... The primary focus of each essay should be an issue of law, although some interdisciplinary material may be useful in addressing a legal issue. Family law includes dissolution of marriage and other intimate relationships, relationships of persons of the same sex, parentage, custody, child support, division of property, alimony (maintenance), attorney's fees, adoption, dependency, termination of parental rights, rights pertaining to procreation, and alternative dispute resolution of Family Law issues. Family Law generally does not include Juvenile Justice, Probate, Labor, Immigration Law, and sociology topics unless those topics are related to more traditional Family Law subjects.

Typically Held in April

These competitions have been held in April in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• American Kennel Club Companion Animal Law Writing Contest Deadline: April 1, 2022 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Students are asked to choose between two topics: The impact of “lawyers for dogs” laws on animal cruelty cases or the constitutionality of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Eligibility: Entrants must be enrolled at an ABA-accredited law school in the United States.
• ABA Standing Committee on Armed Forces Law Keithe E. Nelson Distinguished Service Award Deadline: TBA for 2024 Topic: Military law or the status of lawyers in the Armed Forces
• UIC John Marshall Law School Center for Tax Law & Employee Benefits Paul Faherty Tax Law Writing Scholarship Deadline: April 13, 2021 Prize: $3,000 Notes: Please contact the Center for Tax Law & Employee Benefits for additional information.
• ABA Admiralty and Maritime Law Committee Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Recent developments in admiralty and maritime law Eligibility: The Competition is open to any U.S. citizen law student or LLM candidate over the age of 21, currently attending an ABA-accredited law school within the United States and its possessions.
• Marshall M. Schulman Annual Competition for Student Papers in Criminal Law and/or Criminal Procedure Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,500 Topic: Criminal law and/or to criminal procedure, with a particular focus on contemporary issues of concern in the State of California Eligibility: This is a nationwide competition; while the focus is on California law, past winners have included students attending schools across the country.
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section Writing Contest Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $500 Topic: Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets or trade dress Eligibility: Open to all law students enrolled in any law school in the United States who intend to take the Pennsylvania bar exam.
• American University Washington College of Law National Health Law Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $2,000 Topic: Papers must address and analyze health law and/or food/drug/device law issues. (Note that a paper that analyzes intellectual property or environmental laws/statutes, even if relating to health or the health care industry, will not be eligible.) Eligibility: Current 2L, 3L, and 4L (evening/part-time) JD and LLM students enrolled in a U.S. law school at the time of paper submission are eligible to participate.
• Public Citizen Law Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice Essay Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Legal Remedies to Combat Climate Change
• National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: April 30, 2021 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code
• AALL/LexisNexis Call For Papers Awards (Student Division) Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $650 Topic: A paper may address any subject relevant to law librarianship. It may be scholarly or practical in substance and tone, but the subject should be explored in depth with appropriate reference to sources and documentation of assertions. Eligibility: Those enrolled in library school, information management school or the equivalent, or in law school, during the Fall 2022 or Spring 2023 semester. Entrants in the Student Division need not be members of AALL.
• ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Student Writing Contest Deadline: May 31, 2023 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Real property, trust and estate law.* Eligibility: Open to any law school student in good standing, over the age of 21, who is currently attending an ABA-accredited law school within the United States and its possessions, and who is a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States. more... less... *“Real property, trust and estate law” is a broad category containing numerous practice disciplines. Without attempting to define the area precisely, the subject is intended to include matters within law school curricula in courses entitled: Property; Estate and Gift Tax; Wills and Decedents’ Estates; Real Estate Development; Environmental Law; Land Use Planning; Federal Taxation; Real Estate Finance; Secured Transactions; Debtors and Creditors; Employee Benefit Plans; Planning, Drafting and Negotiating Commercial Transactions; Taxation and Regulation of Non-Profit Organizations; Business Succession Planning; Life Insurance and Other Insurance Products; Trusts and Trust Law; Wealth Management; Fiduciary Income Taxation; Estate Planning; and Probate and Estate Administration.

Typically Held in May

These competitions have been held in May in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• UNIDROIT Essay Competition Deadline: May 1, 2022 Prize: 2,500 € Topic: Any relevant current or future UNIDROIT instrument(s) such as the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts, the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and its Protocols, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, the UNIDROIT-FAO-IFAD Legal Guides on Contract Farming, and/or Agricultural Land Investment Contracts, among others.
• Chief Justice John B. Doolin Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $1,000 Eligibility: Open to any student enrolled in college, at any level.
• National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Bar Association Michael Greenberg Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $500 Topic: Legal issues affecting LGBTQ+ persons.
• AALL Morris L. Cohen Student Essay Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $500 Topic: Essays may be on any topic related to legal history, rare law books, or legal archives.
• National Crime Victim Law Institute Annual Law Student Victims’ Rights Writing Competition Deadline: May 20, 2024 Prize: $200 Topic: Victims’ rights (preference given to papers focusing on rights enforcement in the context of criminal justice systems) Eligibility: Authors/presenters must be enrolled in an ABA-accredited law school at the date of their submission or have graduated from such a school within the last 18 months.
• IDEA Student IP Writing Competition Deadline: May 28, 2021 Prize: $500 Topic: Intellectual property law
• ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources Writing Competitions Deadline: May 31, 2023 Prize: $1,000 Topic: See link for details of eight separate writing competitions: Endangered Species, Energy Law, Forest Law, International Environmental and Resources Law, Native American Resources, Public Land and Resources, Superfund, Brownfields, and Resource Recovery, and Water Law
• American Association of Patent Judges Hon. Frederick E. McKelvey Memorial Scholarship Deadline: June 30, 2023 Prize: $500 Topic: For this year’s entry, an entrant must identify ways patents “promote the progress of … useful arts” (Const.; Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8) and explain how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can encourage that. In your answer, please define “useful arts.” Eligibility: Students matriculated at and attending an ABA-accredited law school at least half-time as of February 28, 2022, are eligible to submit an entry for this competition.
• International Insolvency Institute Prize in International Insolvency Studies Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $3,000 Topic: Topics of international insolvency and restructuring significance and comparative international analysis of domestic insolvency and restructuring issues and developments. Eligibility: The Prize Competition is open to full and part-time undergraduate and graduate students and to practitioners in practice for nine years or less. Entries must not have been published.
• Judge John R. Brown Award for Excellence in Legal Writing Deadline: May 31, 2023 Prize: Up to $15,000 Eligibility: Any law student currently enrolled in an accredited law school in the United States seeking a J.D. or LL.B degree is eligible to submit a paper for the Award. The article must be accompanied by a letter of recommendation from a law school faculty member or legal professional other than the author of the paper.
• Georgetown Law Technology Student Writing Competition Deadline: May 31, 2023 Prize: $4,000 Topic: This year’s writing competition invites submissions on Personal Information, Power, and the Intersection of Technology and Society. Submitted papers should in some way address data-driven or data-intensive technologies. See link for further details and examples of potential topics. Eligibility: Papers will be accepted from students enrolled at any ABA-accredited law school in the United States during the 2021-2022 academic year. The paper must be the author’s own work, although students may incorporate feedback received as part of an academic course or supervised writing project. The paper must not have been published or committed for publication in another journal.
• Tax Notes Student Writing Competition Deadline: June 30, 2023 Topic: Submissions should focus on an unsettled question in federal, state, or international tax law or policy. Eligibility: The competition is open to any student currently enrolled in a law, business, or public policy program. Each student may submit only one paper. Co-authored papers will be accepted.

Typically Held in June

These competitions have been held in June in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• American College of Employee Benefits Counsel Writing Contest Deadline: June 1, 2023 Prize: $1,800 Topic: Employee benefits legal topics Eligibility: Any J.D. and graduate (L.L.M. or S.J.D.) law students enrolled at any time between August 15, 2021, and August 15, 2022, who have not at any time engaged in the practice of law.
• American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics Health Law and Anti-Racism Graduate Student Writing Competition Deadline: July 1, 2023 Prize: $500 Topic: Note that a wide variety of topics will be viewed as in scope, but papers must focus specifically on health law in the context of anti-racism. If you have questions about the suitability of your topic, please ask.
• Notre Dame Smith-Doheny Legal Ethics Writing Competition Deadline: June 1, 2022 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Any issue within the general category of legal ethics. Eligibility: Open to all law students at U.S. and Canadian law schools.
• CITBA/University of Miami School of Law Andrew P. Vance Memorial Writing Competition Deadline: June 3, 2022 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Current issues relevant to customs and international trade law. Eligibility: Entrants must be currently enrolled in a J.D. or L.L.M. program at any of the nation’s law schools.
• ABA Commission on Disability Rights Adam A. Milani Writing Competition Deadline: June 9, 2023 Prize: Up to $1,000 Topic: The submission may address any aspect of disability law, theory, or practice the contestant chooses. Other permissible topics include issues arising under any of the following statutes: Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Family and Medical Leave Act; or any state statutes or municipal ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Eligibility: The competition is open to all students who attend a law school in the United States. Full-time students who are not law students but who write law-related papers as part of a course at an American law school are also eligible.
• Food and Drug Law Institute H. Thomas Austern Writing Competition Deadline: June 12, 2023 Prize: $750 Topic: Current legal issues concerning food, drugs, animal drugs, biologics, cosmetics, diagnostics, dietary supplements, medical devices, veterinary devices, cannabis, or tobacco
• ABA Section of Dispute Resolution James Boskey Essay Competition Deadline: June 9, 2023 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Any aspect of dispute resolution practice, theory or research that the contestant chooses. Eligibility: The competition is open to anyone, age 21 or older, who was a full-time or part- time J.D. law student, including students in joint J.D. degree programs, at an ABA-accredited law school during the 2020-21 academic year.
• American Journal of Mediation National Dispute Resolution Writing Competition Deadline: December 15, 2023 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Subject matter focus for entries can embrace the full range of the alternative dispute resolution field– consensus-based dispute resolution (e.g., negotiation, mediation), adjudicative processes (e.g., early neutral evaluation, binding or non-binding arbitration and private judging), or mixed processes (e.g., arb-med, med-arb, high low arbitration, baseball arbitration). Papers can also focus on ADR process design, practice techniques, specific case studies, related legislation, and ethical dilemmas and standards for dispute resolution professionals. Eligibility: The competition is open to all North American JD and LLM law students enrolled as of December 15, 2021.
• Chapman LLC Scholarship for Law Students Deadline: June 15, 2023 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Should collegiate athletes be paid? Argue for or against and provide at least 3 reasons for your position. Eligibility: Law student planning on attending, accepted to attend, or currently attending an accredited law school in the U.S.; U.S. citizen 18 years or older.
• Bloomberg Tax Insights Student Writing Competition Deadline: June 15, 2022 Prize: One-year subscription to Bloomberg Tax Topic: Tax policy Eligibility: You must be a part-time or full-time law student at an accredited U.S. law school or foreign equivalent, or a part-time or full-time student pursuing an undergraduate or graduate tax, accounting, or business degree. Co-authored or team papers are OK.
• College of Labor and Employment Lawyers Writing Competition for Law Students Deadline: June 15, 2022 Prize: $3,000 Topic: Labor and employment law
• ABA Forum on Construction Law’s Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: June 30, 2023 Prize: $2,000 Topic: Papers should address a topical issue of interest to the construction industry. Eligibility: The competition is open to any student age 21 years or older enrolled in an ABA-accredited law school during the academic years 2021 and 2022 of the competition who is a legal resident of the United States.
• ABA Infrastructure and Regulated Industries Section K. William Kolbe Writing Competition Deadline: June 30, 2023 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Papers should address a current topic of general interest in a legal area covered by the Infrastructure and Regulated Industries Section (communications, cable TV, internet, electricity, gas, oil pipelines, aviation, railroads, and water industries).
• American College of Trust and Estate Counsel Mary Moers Wenig Student Writing Competition Deadline: June 30, 2023 Topic: The paper must relate to the area of trusts and estates, broadly defined. Entrants should write on issues of general interest, rather than state specific issues. Eligibility: Any law student in good standing (full-time or part-time) who is currently enrolled at the time of submission or was a student within the past 90-day period prior to submission as a J.D. or LL.M. candidate in an ABA-accredited law school within the United States or its possessions. more... less... Any one or more of the following topics are appropriate for discussion: Business Planning; Charitable Planning; Elder Law; Employee Benefits; Fiduciary Accounting; Fiduciary Administration; Fiduciary Income Taxation; Fiduciary Litigation; Estate Planning and Drafting; Professional Responsibility; Substantive Laws for the Gratuitous Transmission of Property; Wealth Transfer Taxation (Estate, Gift and GST Tax)
• American Intellectual Property Law Association Robert C. Watson Award Deadline: June 30, 2023 Topic: Intellectual property law
• American Society for Pharmacy Law Simonsmeier Award Deadline: June 30, 2023 Topic: Pharmacy law (law related to pharmacists, pharmacies, the provision of pharmaceutical care, the manufacturing and distribution of drugs, and other food, drug, and medical device policy issues) Eligibility: Papers published in or accepted for publication in any English-language peer-reviewed journal (including law reviews) during the period from January 2020 through December 2021 are eligible.
• Journal of Law in the Middle East by LexisNexis Student Essay Competition Deadline: June 30, 2022 Prize: LexisNexis MENA Book Collection, valued at over USD $1000 Topic: Discuss the legal and ethical considerations of AI applications, with a focus on the Middle East. Eligibility: At the time of submission, the student must be an LL.B., LL.M., Ph.D. or S.J.D. candidate at any institution in the world.
• American Planning Association Smith-Babcock-Williams Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $2,000 Topic: Planning, planning law, land use law, local government law or environmental law Eligibility: Open to law students and planning students
• ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Gellhorn-Sargentich Law Student Essay Award Competition Deadline: June 30, 2023 Prize: $5,000 Topic: The entry must discuss any topic relating to administrative law. Eligibility: The Competition is open to law students who are, at the time of entry, (a) enrolled in an ABA-accredited law school, (b) members of the ABA and the Section, (c) at least 21 years old, and (d) U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.

Typically Held in July

These competitions have been held in July in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• ABA Criminal Section Justice Annual William W. Greenhalgh Student Writing Competition Deadline: July 1, 2023 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Technology-enhanced searches Eligibility: The contest is open to students who, on the date the entry is submitted, attend and are in good standing at an ABA-accredited law school within the United States and its possessions. Membership in the Criminal Justice Section is not a requirement. Entrants must be at least 21 years of age and legal permanent residents or citizens of the United States.
• American Inns of Court Warren E. Burger Prize Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Authors should address one or more aspects of professionalism, ethics, civility, and excellence within the legal profession.
• Arizona State Law Journal Criminal Justice Reform National Writing Competition Deadline: July 1, 2023 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Criminal justice reform Eligibility: Applicants must be enrolled full-time at an ABA-accredited law school at the time of submission.
• INS/IYNA Neuroethics Essay Contest Deadline: July 7, 2023 Prize: $250 Topic: Essay submissions can cover any topic in neuroethics and should address a focused problem at the intersections of the mind and brain sciences, ethics, and law. Example topics include, but are not limited to: neuroenhancement, neurolaw, moral psychology, moral philosophy, brain stimulation, ethics of neurodegenerative illness, neurogenetics, neurotechnology policy and regulation, philosophy of mind, clinical ethics in psychiatry and neurosurgery, neural imaging, big data and neuroscience, brain–computer interaction, military applications of neurotechnology, and free will. Notes: Those included in the definition of ‘post-secondary student’ or ‘early career trainees’ during the Spring 2022 semester may submit an essay to either the Academic or General Audience categories. Authors may submit two different essays — one to each category. See Neuroethics Essay Contest website for more information on essay categories.
• Theodore Tannenwald, Jr. Foundation for Excellence in Tax Scholarship Writing Competition Deadline: July 10, 2023 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Submitted papers must focus primarily upon technical or policy-oriented tax issues relating to any type of existing or proposed U.S. federal or state tax or U.S. federal or state taxation system (including topics relating to tax practice ethical and professional responsibility matters). See Competition Rules for more information.
• Esports Bar Association Journal Top Student Submission Deadline: July 15, 2022 Prize: $3,000 Topic: Esports and the law Eligibility: Submissions are open to current law students, law school faculty, attorneys, and other practitioners over the age of 18. You do not need to be a member of the EBA in order to submit.
• NYSBA Committee on Animals and the Law: Student Writing Competition Deadline: July 7, 2023 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Animal law Eligibility: To be eligible for consideration, the submission must be written by a student currently enrolled (full time or part time) in an ABA-accredited law school. Students expecting to receive their degree in 2022 are eligible for consideration. The submission must be written by one, and only one student, i.e., papers jointly written by more than one student or that have been subjected to line editing by professors or advisors shall not be considered. No paper that has been previously published in any form shall be considered.
• Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund Law School Writing Competition Deadline: July 15, 2022 Prize: $5,000 Topic: TAFEF wants to encourage the submission of articles that address topics in both federal and state False Claims Acts as well as the administrative programs that support whistleblowers and sanction fraudulent claims in government programs. Topics that fall within these parameters are eligible. Eligibility: For the 2022 competition, the article submitted to TAFEF must have appeared in a law journal or review during the 18-month period January 2021 through June 2022. If the law journal or review has not yet been published, you must certify that your submission has been accepted for publication in a law review or journal dated during that period.
• CLGI Global Climate Law and Governance Essay Competition Deadline: July 19, 2022 Topic: Essays can address any aspect of law and governance related to climate change or sustainable development, from local to global. This may include principles or provisions of the Paris Agreement and its Katowice Rulebook; recent trends in climate change dispute settlement and litigation; the challenges and opportunities of design, implementation and reform of legal and institutional frameworks for climate mitigation, adaptation/resilience or finance; climate aspects of trade and investment instruments; and human rights and climate justice. Eligibility: The competition is open to undergraduate and graduate students. Students from least developed countries are especially encouraged to apply. Submissions may be co-authored.
• National Institute of Military Justice Rear Admiral John S. Jenkins Writing Award for Law Students Deadline: July 31, 2023 Prize: $250 Topic: Military law Eligibility: Papers and/or published articles are eligible for this award if they were written by a candidate for the J.D. in the previous academic year.

Typically Held in August

These competitions have been held in August in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• Education Law Association George Jay Joseph Award Deadline: August 1, 2022 Topic: The subject matter must address one or more legal issues within any of the various contexts of education, including public and private K-12 schools and institutions of higher education, especially current and emerging issues.
• Philadelphia Bar Association Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pursuit of Justice Legal Writing Competition Deadline: August 1, 2023 Prize: $2,500 Topic: Candidates may submit a law review quality submission on any topic relating to rights, privileges, and responsibilities under federal law. Eligibility: Open to full-time and part-time law students who completed their second or third year of study by the end of the 2021-2022 academic year at one of the following six institutions : Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, Rutgers Law School, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and Widener University Delaware Law School. Part-time law students who were in their third or later year of study during the 2021-2022 academic year are also eligible.
• National Association of Women Lawyers Selma Moidel Smith Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: February 1, 2024 Prize: $500 Topic: Entrants should submit a paper on an issue concerning, in your opinion, the most pressing issue related to advancing equality in the legal field. Topics can include but are not limited to, examining race, gender, sex, feminism, LGBTQIA+, pay equity, equal education, and employment opportunity, and or the Equal Rights Amendment, etc. Eligibility: Essays will be accepted from students enrolled at an ABA-accredited law school during the 2020-2021 school year. The essays must be the law student author’s own work and must not have been submitted for publication elsewhere. Papers written by students for coursework or independent study during the summer, fall, or spring semesters are eligible for submission. Notwithstanding the foregoing, students may incorporate professorial feedback as part of a course requirement or supervised writing project.
• Sarin McGill Annual Student Essay Contest on Aircraft Finance & Leasing Registration Deadline: TBA for 2024 Submission Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: Airfare and accommodations to tour McGill University's Institute of Air and Space Law. Topic: Following the Russian Federation’s re-registration, without the consent of the lessors or the states of registration, of aircraft leased to Russian operators, what are the implications for leasing and financing of aircraft, for the Chicago Convention, for the rule of law generally, and especially for third countries to which any such aircraft may be flown? Are there any precedents and, if so, how may they be compared and contrasted with the current situation? What solutions might there be? Eligibility Any student of law, enrolled in an undergraduate, graduate or doctoral programme in any law school or legal professional training school worldwide, at the time of submission of the entry, shall be considered eligible.
• Goettingen Journal of International Law Essay Competition Deadline: August 1, 2021 Topic: The pandemic continues to be omnipresent in our lives and gives rise to a number of legal questions, including in international law. GoJIL is seeking student contributions that explore such questions from novel and interesting perspectives.

Typically Held in September

These competitions have been held in September in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• Philadelphia Bar Association Law Student Essay Contest Deadline: September 6, 2022 Prize: $500 Topic: Advice for new or aspiring law school applicants Eligibility: Any rising 2L, rising 3L, or recently graduated law student attending a Philadelphia area law school (University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School, Rutgers University Law School-Camden)
• ABA Aviation and Space Law Committee Writing Competition Deadline: September 9, 2022 Prize: $500 Topic: Submissions should address a recent development in any area of aviation or space law or discuss an area of aviation or space law where a controversy or disagreement exist. Eligibility The competition is open to all current U.S. citizen law student and LLM candidates. Membership in the ABA, TIPS or the Aviation and Space Law is not required for participation, though membership is free for all law students.
• PIABA Foundation James E. Beckley Student Writing Competition Deadline: September 16, 2022 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Any aspect of Securities Law; Securities Arbitration; The Federal Arbitration Act, Title 9, US Code, Section 1-14; or FINRA Code of Arbitration, effective April 16, 2007 and any changes or proposed changes to that Code. Eligibility: The competition is open to all students who attend a law school in the United States. Full-time students who are not law students but who write law-related papers as part of a course at an American law school are also eligible.
• International Fiscal Association International Tax Student Writing Competition Deadline: September 30, 2023 Prize: $5,000 Topic: Any topic relating to U.S. taxation of income from international activities, including taxation under U.S. tax treaties. Eligibility: All students during the 2021-22 academic year (including independent study and summer 2022 school courses) pursuing a graduate degree (J.D., L.L.M., S.J.D., M.S.T., MTA, Masters of Taxation, or similar program). Any appropriate papers written in fall 2021 or spring and summer 2022.
• ABA Section of Public Contract Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: September 30, 2022 Prize: $2,000 Topic: Papers should address a topical issue of interest to the public contract and grant law community. Eligibility: To be eligible to participate in the Competition, as of September 30, 2022 entrants must be 21 or over, U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents of the United States; and current members in good standing of the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Section of Public Contract Law (ABA and Section membership dues paid in full for the current bar year). more... less... Unpublished papers prepared for law school credit are eligible for entry in the Competition. Papers prepared for law school credit that have been submitted to or published by the Public Contract Law Journal are also eligible for the Competition. Papers that have been published in media other than the Public Contract Law Journal prior to September 30, 2022 are not eligible for the Competition. Papers submitted for publication in media other than the Public Contract Law Journal are not eligible for the Competition, unless the other publication agrees that the Public Contract Law Journal shall have the right of first publication of the winning essay.

Typically Held in October

These competitions have been held in October in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• American Agricultural Law Association Modern Agricultural Legal Issues Essay Contest Deadline: October 14, 2022 Topic: Agricultural law Eligibility: The competition is open to law students who are, at the time of entry, (a) enrolled in an ABA-accredited law school, (b) pursuing a J.D. degree; and (c) at least 18 years old.

Typically Held in November

These competitions have been held in November in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• NYSBA Albert S. Pergam International Law Writing Competition Award Deadline: November 3, 2023 Prize: $2,000 Topic: Public or private international law Eligibility: Law Students (including J.D., LL.M., Ph.D. and S.J.D. candidates) are cordially invited to submit to the International Section an article concerning any area of public or private international law or practice. Faculty members of any college or university are ineligible to participate.
• vLex International Law and Technology Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: £1,500 Topic: Can choose one of three topics: law, technology and sports; law, technology and climate; or law, technology and crypto. See competition page for more information. Eligibility: All current students and recent graduates can enter.
• American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers Writing Competition Deadline: November 1, 2023 Prize: $1,500 Topic: Eligible entries must discuss some aspect of U.S. consumer financial services law. Topics that relate principally to securities regulation, bankruptcy, insurance, or the safety and soundness aspects of banking regulation are not eligible, but works on subjects within these (or other) areas will be considered if they bear directly on U.S. consumer financial services.
• Video Game Bar Association David S. Rosenbaum Scholarship Deadline: Contact [email protected] Prize: $2,500 Topic: Video games and the law. Potential topics could include: developments in game accessibility; reputation management and user-creations (mods, skins, etc.); game developer unionization and labor rights.
• Dukeminier Awards Jeffrey S. Haber Prize for Student Scholarship Deadline: TBA for 2023 Prize: $1,000 Topic: Sexual orientation and gender identity law

Typically Held in December

These competitions have been held in December in prior academic years. Check each link for the latest information.

• ABA Health Law Section Student Writing Competition Deadline: December 31, 2021 Prize: $500 Topic: Any aspect of health law
• National Law Review Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: Monthly (reviewed September through May) Notes: The NLR Law Student Writing Competition offers law students the opportunity to submit articles for publication consideration on the NLR Web site.
• Houston Journal of International Law James Baker Hughes Prize Deadline: Information on the 2022 James Baker Hughes Prize coming soon. Prize: $500 Notes: The manuscript’s focus must be on international economic law.
• ABA Standing Committee on Law & National Security Writing Competition Deadline: TBD Notes: The Law Student Writing Competition will not be held for the 2020-2021 academic year.
• American Bankruptcy Institute Bankruptcy Law Student Writing Competition Deadline: TBD Prize: $2000 Notes: As of January 26, 2021, The Annual ABI Law Student Writing Competition will not be held this year. We hope to be able to resume the competition in future years.
• ELI Constitutional Environmental Law Writing Competition Deadline: TBD Prize: $2000 Topic: Any topic addressing developments or trends in U.S. environmental law with a significant constitutional, “federalism,” or other cross-cutting component.
• Hofstra Law School and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Family Law Writing Competition Deadline: TBA for 2024 Prize: $500 Topic: The subject of entries may be within any area of family law, although topics that focus on international or interdisciplinary subjects of family law are especially encouraged.
• If/When/How Sarah Weddington Writing Prize for New Student Scholarship in Reproductive Rights Law Deadline: TBD Prize: $750 Topic: Reproductive rights and justice issues in the U.S.
• International Association of Gaming Advisors Shannon Bybee Scholarship Award Deadline: TBD Notes: Each year IAGA awards prizes for the best scholarly research papers written by accredited law school students as part of their class work during the current school year. To be considered for the award, each submitted paper must either enhance the understanding of gaming law or recommend a beneficial gaming law change.
• LSAC Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Writing Competition Deadline: TBD Prize: $5,000 Eligibility: All currently enrolled law students pursuing a JD degree are eligible for the competition.

Related Guides

• Developing a Topic for Research Papers by Lindsay Steussy Last Updated Aug 18, 2022 7 views this year
• Law Review Resources by Lindsay Steussy Last Updated Sep 5, 2022 5 views this year

Library Chat

• << Previous: By Topic
• Next: Additional Resources >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2023 12:55 PM
• URL: https://klinelaw.libguides.com/writingcompetitions

Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy

About Journal

Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy is conceived with the aim of fostering research in the field of competition law and policy. Competition law is a relatively new area of interdisciplinary research concerning law, economics, and finance. With the publication of this journal, the Commission hopes to stimulate rigorous research and informed debate on contemporary issues in the field and apply the results for enforcement and advocacy.

Journal Particulars

Current Issue

CCIJOCLP, Vol. 4, No. 2 [2023]

Published: 2024-04-01

Research Papers

Impact of merger on efficiency, stability, and competitiveness of public sector banks, a study beyond the see-saw of relevant and global turnover: finding a mechanism for adequate penalty, should over-the-top (ott) providers pay the telecom industry, book reviews, book review: competition law in south asia: policy diffusion and transfer, market study report on the dynamics of competition in the indian mining sector with a focus on iron ore.

Removing the Human from Trademark Law

• Open access
• Published: 22 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alpana Roy 1 &
• Althaf Marsoof 2  

61 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper envisions a future in which humans begin to entrust interconnected and intelligent devices and machines with the power to make purchasing decisions on their behalf. Artificial Intelligence (AI), together with the Internet of Things (IoT) and blockchain technology, will likely make this possible. What might be the role of trademarks and the law governing their protection in such a future? This paper responds to this question by considering how the use of AI, IoT, and blockchain technology in the retail space will impact the foundational concepts underpinning trademark law. The discussion highlights the difficulty of shifting trademark law away from its human-centric focus, where core doctrines and principles revolve around human interaction and perceptions, towards a system capable of adapting to a future where devices and machines interact with trademarks. Perhaps the time is ripe for legislative innovation in the field of trademarks.

Similar content being viewed by others

AI, IoT, and Blockchain: Business Models, Ethical Issues, and Legal Perspectives

Fundamentals of Blockchain and Smart Contracts

Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technology in Insurance Business

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Imagine a world driven entirely by Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and blockchain technology, in which devices speak to each other securely and make meaningful decisions, offering the convenience and efficiency needed for the human mind to be put to use for things that truly matter. Such a world might still sound imaginative, if not even fictional. But considering the trajectory of technological development, it is fast becoming a reality. We are already witnessing AI being incorporated into the retail consumer space. Google’s search algorithm uses AI to provide internet users with the most relevant search results. Amazon’s Alexa uses AI voice recognition technology to help humans interact and transact on the Amazon platform. Autonomous vehicles, like the Tesla, can run self-diagnostic tools and pre-order replacement parts, with nearly all aspects of the transaction, such as product selection and payment, being carried out using automated means without the involvement of humans. Scale this up a notch, and we might find entire homes, offices, and organizations in a wide range of industries – from healthcare to hospitality and beyond – delegating the task of managing supplies and stock to devices and machines that benefit from AI, IoT, and blockchain technology. The integration of AI into the retail consumer space poses fundamental questions about the role and relevance of trademarks in an era where algotihms, rather than humans, dictate consumer choices.

To address the emerging paradigm shaped by technological advancements, this paper introduces and examines a central hypothesis – namely, that the increasing reliance on AI and related technologies in commercial transactions is poised to challenge the traditional functions of trademarks and expose the inadequacies of core doctrines and principles underpinning trademark law. This situation creates a unique landscape of conflict and misalignment. On the one hand, trademark proprietors are increasingly leveraging technology to engage with consumers, harnessing AI and digital tools to enhance brand recognition and consumer interaction. On the other hand, concern is growing about unauthorized third parties, especially those engaging in counterfeiting, who may commit acts of infringement that do not neatly fall within the conventional confines of trademark law. These acts could range from the sophisticated misuse of AI in creating confusingly similar products or services to tampering with and altering trademark-related records stored on the blockchain, and the exploitation of digital platforms and services in a manner that traditional legal frameworks dealing with trademarks struggle to address.

This paper aims to explore these areas of potential conflict and misalignment, highlighting the aspects where existing trademark law may not fully correspond to the new realities of an AI-driven retail marketplace. Such a mismatch underscores the urgent need for a critical reassessment of trademark law. Consequently, this paper raises the following pivotal questions. What might be the role of trademarks and the law governing their protection and enforcement in a world where interconnected devices, rather than humans, make purchasing decisions? And how do these developments affect the interests of trademark owners in light of the challenges posed by the unauthorized use or misuse of technology? This paper seeks to respond to these questions by examining the historical role and functions of trademarks, the rationale and justifications for their protection, and the fundamental definitions and doctrines in trademark law. The paper then discusses how developments in AI, IoT, and blockchain technology could forecast new directions for trademarks and the law governing their protection and enforcement.

In terms of structure, we begin by outlining current technological developments to give the reader an appreciation of how technology is evolving and influencing the retail space.  We then consider the core doctrines and principles that underpin trademark law to determine their relevance and role in the world envisioned by this paper – i.e. a world where devices and machines instead of humans make purchasing decisions. In particular, we examine the impact of these advancements on key aspects of trademark law, including the definition of “signs” eligible for trademark protection, the concept of “distinctiveness”, the “trademark use” requirement, and the “confusion” test. Finally, we conclude this paper with some reflections on future research and opportunities.

2 Technological Developments and Their Influence on Trademarks, Trademark Proprietors and Consumers

From time to time, technological developments have influenced how humans interact and transact. In the trademark context, AI, IoT, and blockchain technology are revolutionizing how trademark proprietors engage with consumers and, more importantly, protect and enforce their rights against the unauthorized and infringing use of their trademarks by third parties. At the same time, these technological advancements are also influencing consumers, particularly with regard to the process of making purchasing decisions. In this part, we set out the developments in AI, IoT, and blockchain technology to posit that there is a real possibility that, in the foreseeable future, humans may employ interconnected devices and machines as their mechanical agents to make decisions and choices relating to the purchase of goods and services.

We begin our discussion by referring to AI. The field of AI is nothing new. It dates back to the 1950s. Footnote 1 AI is significant because it is more than just an algorithm. Algorithms are processes that use logic to solve problems. Computers typically function using algorithms. Given the power and versatility of computers, they can run algorithms at great speed and for vast amounts of data – well beyond the capacity of the human mind. Footnote 2 However, AI goes beyond algorithmic analytical processes. Footnote 3 AI refers to a “computer process that acts in a manner that an ordinary person would deem intelligent”. Footnote 4 This is possible because AI uses neural networks, the functionality of which resembles the human brain. Footnote 5 Thus, AI systems can potentially be used to mimic human judgement , enabling the automation of tasks and processes that otherwise require human input and control.

Numerous technologies exist under the broad umbrella of AI. For instance, AI systems employ machine learning techniques that engage deep neural networks to facilitate what is known as “deep learning”. Footnote 6 Such neural networks “enable systems to recognize features in complex data inputs such as human speech, images and text”, Footnote 7 and “the performance of these systems in delivering the specific task for which they have been trained now compares favourably with humans”. Footnote 8 These capabilities of AI have been used for a wide range of activities across many sectors and industries. Footnote 9

More specifically, in the retail sector, the capacity of AI systems to recognize text and images has been put to good use by trademark proprietors. For instance, AI is already being employed to authenticate products so that genuine trademarked items can be distinguished from infringing goods or counterfeits. Footnote 10 Major brands such as Louis Vuitton, Chanel and Gucci have partnered with Entrupy, a start-up specializing in product authentication using a combination of AI and microscopy to assess the authenticity of products objectively. Footnote 11 Entrupy explains its technology on its website as follows:

When the item is scanned using our proprietary device and app, a set of microscopic images are collected, then our machine learning algorithms compare them against a database containing millions of records from known authentic and known counterfeit products. Based on the results of this comparison, the AI will either verify the item’s authenticity or return an “unverified” result. Each scan from an Entrupy device becomes part of the database, further training the algorithms and making our solution smarter and more accurate. Footnote 12

Not only trademark proprietors but also traders who buy and sell luxury goods have turned to AI to detect infringing and counterfeit items. Footnote 13

While Entrupy uses AI to scan physical products to verify their authenticity, AI is also currently being used for counterfeit detection in the online retail space, where there is no opportunity to physically inspect the products sold. Trademark proprietors, and intermediaries acting on their behalf, utilize text and image recognition tools that employ AI techniques to scan through websites and online marketplaces to identify text and images that are identical or similar to trademarks. Indeed, major online marketplaces have also embraced AI to police their platforms for infringing and counterfeit product listings. Footnote 14 Such scans can determine potential instances of trademark infringement and counterfeiting.

Also, in the retail space, AI is having a significant impact on consumers. Search engines, such as Google, and online marketplaces like Amazon are using AI to provide a more customized user experience for internet users and shoppers. AI algorithms utilize a combination of data, such as previous purchases, customer ratings, browsing history, and information about complementary products, or products usually bought together, to generate a recommended list of products specific to a particular user/shopper. Footnote 15 Indeed, AI is also being tested and employed to determine whether customer reviews about a given product are favourable. Footnote 16 Arguably, these tools give consumers greater choice and information about their purchases. There is also literature developing around the phenomenon of “voice shopping” and the manner in which it is altering how consumers interact with trademarks. Footnote 17 Popular examples include Amazon’s Alexa and Google Home. While interactive voice assistants offer consumers a more intuitive way of searching for goods and services, this has also resulted in consumers having to place greater reliance on AI algorithms when making their purchasing decisions. Indeed, in view of the emergence and proliferation of the metaverse, it is likely that more consumers will turn to shopping on virtual platforms powered by AI that can offer a realistic experience. Footnote 18

Given these trends in relation to AI and its interaction with trademarks, it would not be too imaginative to suggest that, in the foreseeable future, AI may be employed to fully automate the process of purchasing goods or services with little or no human involvement at the point of purchase . Footnote 19 Complete automation may not necessarily happen in all product areas. For instance, consumers of luxury goods may continue to exercise judgement over their purchasing decisions. However, even in those cases, it is very likely that more consumers will turn to the aid of AI when searching for goods or services. Thus, any human judgement will likely be preceded by selections and choices made by AI algorithms. Either way, we can be sure that devices and machines that employ AI will directly interact with trademarks with minimal human involvement, if not completely without it.

The prospect of interconnected devices and machines replacing humans in making purchasing decisions becomes even more likely when corresponding developments in IoT and blockchain technology are considered. The term “Internet of Things” or “IoT” refers to “a network of interconnected ‘smart objects’ that incorporate software, electronic components, sensors, actuators and internet connections through to which data is collected and distributed”. Footnote 20 By embracing IoT, we are moving towards a “world where physical objects are seamlessly integrated into the information network, and where the physical objects can become active participants in business processes”. Footnote 21 IoT has numerous applications – from health and fitness trackers to home appliances and automobile sensors; Footnote 22 interconnected devices and machines utilize sensors to gather data to provide helpful real-time information that could aid decision-making processes.

In the area of logistics and supply chain, IoT is already playing a crucial role in supply chain integrity , which has implications in the field of trademarks. Tracking mechanisms and sensors are increasingly being incorporated into products and their packaging. Information establishing the authenticity of products can be translated into machine-readable formats such as QR codes, bar codes, and RFID tags, which then can be used by human users/consumers with appropriate scanning devices to verify product authenticity. Footnote 23 With IoT, the authentication process can be automated Footnote 24 – “[t]racking and tracing objects as they are moving along the supply chain is one of the most important basic functions of the Internet of Things. It provides the foundation for product authentication, anti-counterfeiting and other supply chain integrity applications”. Footnote 25 Thus, when developments in IoT are considered in light of advancements in AI, it is not difficult to imagine a future where interconnected devices and machines directly interact with trademarks in both online and offline contexts in the course of automated processes. Notably, we predict that AI and IoT will be used to automate the process of procuring goods and services for both households and businesses.

However, such a future will become a reality only if humans are willing to place their trust in technology. In this regard, developments in blockchain technology can provide the necessary trust. Conventionally, data and electronic records are stored in centralized databases. Such an approach is vulnerable to data breaches, hacking and manipulation. Footnote 26 Instead of a centralized system, blockchain (as the term suggests) uses a distributed and decentralized methodology for storing data. Footnote 27 Essentially, any data or electronic record is “mined” into blocks and chained (or linked) together using a hash (or timestamp) across a decentralized network of “nodes”. Footnote 28 While nothing is “un-hackable”, blockchain’s security works because of its decentralized approach. Footnote 29 Victims of hacking on the blockchain are those who attempted to centralize a decentralized system. Footnote 30

Although, in the past, blockchain technology was mainly associated with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, in more recent times it has provided the technical basis for a wide range of applications and uses. Footnote 31 Significantly, many categories and types of data can be represented on a blockchain. This means that blockchain technology can be used to represent intellectual property assets such as art, music, and films, as well as transactional and supply-chain information about goods protected by intellectual property rights. Footnote 32 More specifically, in the trademark context, trademark proprietors currently employ blockchain technology to provide a mechanism to authenticate their products. A simple QR code, bar code, or RFID tag on a product or its packaging can be linked to a record on the blockchain providing information about the product’s trademark, manufacturer, place of origin, and current location on the supply chain. Indeed, blockchain technology is also being used to digitize trademarks so that their registration and use can be tracked and traced. Footnote 33 The “Smart Trade Mark” that the Australian Intellectual Property Office has recently introduced is an example of this. Footnote 34 In essence, blockchain technology can facilitate the means for verifying whether a given use of a trademark in relation to any goods or services is authorized and whether products bearing a particular trademark are genuine. These applications of blockchain technology make a strong case in favour of the future envisioned by this paper – i.e. a future where interconnected devices and machines engaging AI and IoT will directly interact with trademarks in making purchasing decisions for their human principals.

From the discussion above, it is clear that AI, IoT, and blockchain technology can be likened to a “trinity” with a significant impact on trademarks and the law governing their protection and enforcement. Their integration presents a complex interplay of new opportunities and challenges, revealing a potential for misalignment between current trademark law and these technological advancements. As these technologies reshape the landscape of trademark usage and enforcement, they also open the door for novel forms of infringement by unauthorized parties. Thus, there is a critical need to re-examine the foundational ideas, definitions, and doctrines that underpin trademark protection to fully grasp the evolving role and functions of trademarks in this new era.

In the next part of this paper, we delve deeper into these issues to highlight gaps, conflicts, and misalignments between the existing legal framework dealing with trademarks and the evolving technological landscape. Our aim is to contribute towards a more informed dialogue on how trademark law can and should adapt to remain effective and relevant amidst the rapid technological advances and novel modes of infringement presented by the synergistic influence of AI, IoT, and blockchain technology.

3 New Bearings for Trademarks?

In the preceding part, we delved into the transformative impact of AI, IoT, and blockchain technology on the interaction between trademarks, trademark proprietors, and consumers. This transformation, as we have seen, is redefining the landscape of how trademarks are used and enforced, challenging our conventional understanding of trademark doctrine. As these technologies increasingly mediate interaction between brands and consumers, it becomes imperative to reassess the traditional functions and role of trademarks. The necessity of this analysis stems from the potential for a significant shift in how trademarks are perceived and utilized in a world increasingly dominated by smart technologies and automated decision-making processes. Here, we aim to bridge the gap between the rapid technological advancements outlined in the previous part of this paper and the traditional legal doctrines applicable to trademarks, exploring how the latter may evolve or need to be reinterpreted in the context of AI, IoT, and blockchain technology. This exploration is not just academic – it is a crucial step in ensuring that trademark law remains relevant and effective in protecting both the rights of trademark proprietors and the interests of consumers in a rapidly changing digital world.

3.1 The Diminishing Functions of Trademarks

Reflecting on the transformative effects of AI, IoT, and blockchain technology, we move on to an in-depth analysis of the evolving functions of trademarks in an increasingly digitized world. The shift in the perception and application of trademarks, driven by these technological advancements, calls for a thorough re-examination of their conventional functions. We delve into the historical progression of the functions of trademarks, scrutinizing how this evolution impacts their significance in an era shaped by AI-driven decision-making and interconnected technologies. This evaluation is vital for determining how trademark law should adapt, ensuring its effectiveness and relevance in safeguarding the rights of trademark proprietors and addressing the needs of consumers in a dynamically changing digital environment.

Marks have existed since ancient times. But, over time, their role and functions have evolved. Historically, marks were used to designate the ownership of objects. Footnote 35 It is speculated that marks first appeared on cattle and other animals even before humans could read and write. Footnote 36 Indeed, the term “branding” (which means “to burn”) appears to have originated from the context of cattle branding Footnote 37 and has survived the test of time to be used today in the discipline of marketing. However, when the context changed, the same mark also served the function of indicating trade origin . The following explanation, which makes use of animal branding as an example, clearly establishes this point:

As we know from our study of the “Western” novels, the brands on these beasts served the purpose of owner’s marks, enabling the owners to reclaim any of their stock which strayed, were stolen by “rustlers,” and so on. Now, when the beast was sold, the brand would immediately become a trademark and tell any purchaser who had reared the animal. Even after slaughter, for all I know, the brand would survive on the hide, identifying that, in its turn, to a purchaser. Footnote 38

In other words, marks used to designate the ownership of things were transformed into indications of trade origin . Indeed, during ancient times, marks were used to designate the origin of various products, such as bells, lamps, pottery, porcelain, bricks, stone and terra cotta, marble, glassware, bronze instruments, gold, silverware, knives, and other iron articles, gems and textiles. Footnote 39 Marks even appeared on consumables such as bread and spirits. Footnote 40 In most cases, the ancient use of marks identified the maker or manufacturer of the article concerned. To date, the origin function of trademarks remains the fundamental, core, and essential function of marks used in trade. On many occasions, the origin function of trademarks has been endorsed by courts across the globe, Footnote 41 including the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Footnote 42

During medieval times, marks inscribed onto articles and objects were also used for regulatory purposes. Guild marks exemplify this, “the principal purpose of which was to fix the responsibility for poor quality merchandise”. Footnote 43 The mark identified the party responsible for producing the faulty product. In other words, marks were used as a measure of quality control. This also meant that products bearing a particular mark were expected to maintain a certain consistent quality, giving rise to the quality assurance function attributed to trademarks. Footnote 44 Indeed, with the expansion of trade, and when goods were traded outside the maker’s or manufacturer’s immediate locality, Footnote 45 consumers began to rely on trademarks to assure themselves of the quality of the underlying goods through past experience or reputation. Often, consumers are unaware of the actual origin of the goods sold under a given trademark. Footnote 46 Instead, trademarks represent “merely that the goods in connection with which it is used emanate from the same – possibly anonymous – source or have reached the consumer through the same channels as certain other goods that have already given the consumer satisfaction, and that bore the same trademark”. Footnote 47 It is therefore understood that the origin and quality assurance functions of trademarks are interlinked, with the former enabling the latter. Footnote 48

While the origin and quality assurance functions of trademarks are very well established, in recent times it has been acknowledged that trademarks possess other functions. For instance, in the context of the European Union, aside from the origin and quality assurance functions of trademarks, the CJEU has recognized that trademarks possess additional functions such as communication, investment and advertising. Footnote 49 The CJEU has held that a trademark may be used not only with the objective of indicating, by means of that mark, the origin of the underlying goods or services but also “for advertising purposes designed to inform and persuade consumers”. Footnote 50 Thus, trademarks possess an advertising function and may be used by their proprietors “in sales promotion or as an instrument of commercial strategy”. Footnote 51 The CJEU has also drawn a distinction between the advertising and investment functions of trademarks. Thus, the use of a trademark “to acquire or preserve a reputation capable of attracting consumers and retaining their loyalty” Footnote 52 represents the exercising of its investment function.

Although the CJEU has referred to a “communication” function, it has not yet defined or provided any guidance on what that function entails. Footnote 53 However, Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi’s opinion in L’Oréal v. Bellure Footnote 54 indicates that the communication function of trademarks comprises two components. The first is information communicated directly by the sign that the trademark consists of, such as information that may be discerned from the descriptive elements of a sign that provide insights into the underlying product’s characteristics. Footnote 55 The second is accumulated information relating to the trademark as a result of promotion and advertising carried out by the proprietor, such as messages relating to non-physical characteristics of the underlying product, that creates an image of the product or the company in terms that may be general (e.g. quality, trustworthiness, reliability) or particular (e.g. a specific style, luxury, strength). Footnote 56 In view of the latter component, it has been argued that the communication function entails an “expressive” aspect. Footnote 57 As a result of this expressive function, trademarks have become indicators of the social status, preferences, and aspirations of those who use  products associated with them. Footnote 58 Indeed, US courts have also acknowledged this expressive function of trademarks. Footnote 59

As the discussion above demonstrates, marks applied in trade have had a long history, and their role and functions have evolved over time. However, that evolutionary process has by no means ended. We posit that the role and functions of trademarks will continue to evolve. This is particularly so in light of the technological advancements in AI, IoT, and blockchain technology that we highlighted earlier. How, then, might the role and functions of trademarks evolve in a world where interconnected devices and machines interact directly with trademarks, making purchasing decisions with little or no human intervention?

Insofar as humans are concerned, trademarks convey specific information that enables them to make informed choices about their purchases. This is possible because, as we noted before, trademarks signal a singular trade origin. By doing so, they guarantee consistent quality, which consumers infer from prior experience or reputation. In essence, trademarks reduce consumer search costs and make markets more efficient. The following observation that we have taken from the law and economics literature lucidly illustrates this point:

Suppose, then, that a consumer has a favorable experience with brand X and wants to buy it again. Or suppose he wants to buy brand X because it has been recommended by a reliable source or because he has had a favorable experience with another brand produced by the same producer. Rather than reading the fine print on the package to determine whether the description matches his understanding of brand X , or investigating attributes of all the different versions of the product (of which X is one brand) to determine which one is brand X , the consumer will find it much less costly to search by identifying the relevant trademark and purchasing the corresponding brand. Footnote 60

Judges, too, have acknowledged the search-cost argument. A notable instance was when the US Supreme Court made the following observation:

In principle, trademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, ‘reduce[s] the customer’s costs of shopping and making purchasing decisions,’ … for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this item – the item with this mark – is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. Footnote 61

The value of trademarks is even more significant when goods possess unobservable features that are crucial to consumers in making their purchasing decisions. The following observation made from an economic standpoint illustrates the potential of trademarks in this regard:

In many markets, sellers have much better information as to the unobservable features of a commodity for sale than the buyers. This is known as information asymmetry. Unobservable features, valued by the consumer, may be crucial determinants of the total value of the good. Observable features can often be imitated to the smallest detail, even though huge differences remain in the unobservable features of the product. In the absence of trademarks, faced with the choice between goods which look identical, the consumer will only by chance pick the one with the desirable unobservable qualities. Footnote 62

In essence, “[t]he economic role of the trademark is to help the consumer identify the unobservable features of the trademarked product.” Footnote 63

However, as noted earlier, this paper postulates a future where interconnected devices and machines acting as mechanical agents for their human principals will make purchasing decisions. This means that the interaction between humans and trademarks will no longer be direct . Humans will interact with AI systems. And in turn, AI systems will interact with trademarks. However, AI systems will not rely on trademarks in the same way that humans do. AI systems will possess the capacity and processing power to make purchasing decisions based on a vast array of data, including trademark-specific information, price, product specifications, customer reviews, promotional information and offers, information about competing and complementary products, and post-sale service reviews. As such, when interacting with AI systems, trademarks will not assume the same role they do when interacting with human consumers.

For AI systems, trademarks will merely represent a class of information that relates to a given product – a variable among many that will go into the AI’s decision-making process. Footnote 64 Indeed, even the essential function of trademarks, namely that of indicating origin, may not have the same significance, as AI systems are likely to be able to accurately identify a product’s exact origin and supply-chain information without reference to trademarks. In the human world, trademarks signal to consumers that products bearing them originate from a single undertaking responsible for the manufacture of the underlying product, although consumers may be completely oblivious to the exact details of the manufacturer and its distribution channels. When AI systems are used to make purchasing decisions, the actual and exact origin of a product will be known to the system even without any reference to trademarks. Thus, the origin function of trademarks is of no significance to AI systems.

Indeed, AI systems are likely to make selections and choices that are far better and more objective than what any human can make solely on the basis of trademarks. This superiority is for a number of reasons. First, AI systems will have access to information that trademarks fail to communicate. After all, trademarks cannot be used as a proxy for product-specific information that can only be ascertained by referring to the fine print on the packaging or product description. Footnote 65 It is often the case that a wide range of products may be sold under the same trademark. Thus, a mere reference to the trademark does not give the prospective consumer any information relating to the specific product unless the consumer has previously made use of that particular product or is making an inference as to its quality and attributes on the basis of other products sold under the same trademark. In contrast, AI systems are likely to be able to capture and process the fine distinctions between the full range of products sold under a given trademark. As such, unlike consumers, who are constrained by the limited information that trademarks convey, AI systems are likely to be able to make distinctions as to the quality and other characteristics of products sold under a given trademark. This will lead to purchasing decisions that are more accurate, well-informed and better suited to the needs of individual consumers.

Second, and somewhat paradoxically, there are times when trademarks can mislead consumers. Given the global nature of trade, identical products sold under the same trademark may, for pragmatic reasons, be manufactured in factories around the world by multiple entities under the control of a single undertaking. Footnote 66 While, theoretically, all such products sold under the same trademark must bear the same quality (after all, that is precisely what trademarks promise), this may not be the case in practice. For instance, Cadbury chocolates produced in the United Kingdom differ in quality from those produced under the same trademark in the United States. Footnote 67 Indeed, a recent study conducted in the European Union noted that:

It has been recognised at the EU level that the presence of products on the EU single market that are marketed as identical in several Member States but which have a significantly different composition or characteristics, exists. Although the brand name, packaging design and marketing look at a first glance the same, research conducted in different Member States has revealed products on the EU’s Single Market that differ in their composition, basic materials used in production or its share in the product, all depending on the country of their purchase. The manufacturer does not seem to be obliged to inform the consumer clearly that the product of a familiar brand, on the market in one specific EU country, may differ in its composition, weight, quality or other related characteristics, in another EU country. Footnote 68

A variety of reasons may contribute to the disparity in quality, some within and others outside the control of the trademark proprietor. For instance, the quality of products sold under a given trademark may vary from territory to territory in view of factors such as regulatory requirements prevailing in the market Footnote 69 or the quality of raw materials available. Footnote 70 On the other hand, since trademark rights are territorial, Footnote 71 trademark proprietors may also use trademarks to segment markets and discriminate on the basis of quality, often resulting in price variations between products sold in different markets under the same trademark. Footnote 72 However, given the proliferation of parallel trade, which is legitimate in some countries Footnote 73 or territories Footnote 74 and not in others, Footnote 75 it may be possible for products sold under the same trademark to bear identical observable features but differ in quality . In such cases, unless consumers look beyond the trademark to identify the place of manufacture and the ingredients used, as set out on the packaging, they may not be able to detect the differences in quality and may thus make purchasing decisions that do not meet their expectations. But when humans begin to rely on AI to make purchasing decisions on their behalf, AI systems are likely to be able to make selections and choices based on a wide range of information, which may allow such systems to identify differences in quality even in respect of products sold under the same trademark. Footnote 76

In essence, the origin function of trademarks will not bear the same weight and value when AI systems begin to interact with trademarks. Not only will AI systems place no reliance on trademarks for their origin function but, more importantly, such systems will have the capacity to overcome discrepancies and gaps in the information that trademarks convey. In other words, AI systems are likely to make superior and better-informed purchasing decisions than humans, who rely strictly on trademarks and their origin function as a guarantee of product quality.

Third, unlike humans, AI systems ( at least for now ) do not possess an inherent ability to feel or entertain emotions. Footnote 77 It has been noted that conventional models of AI “do not include emotions” Footnote 78 and that “AI is currently able to perform data-based tasks, but not feeling-based tasks based on human understanding and experience”. Footnote 79 In essence, machines are “intelligent, but they don’t love or hate”. Footnote 80 Arguably, this means that AI systems will not be influenced or persuaded by the advertising, investment, and communication functions of trademarks. As noted before, the advertising function of trademarks is designed to inform and persuade consumers. However, AI decision-making is driven by logic and data. Similarly, the investment function of trademarks may become redundant against AI. The investment function enables trademarks to attract and retain loyalty. However, not only do AI systems “lack brand loyalty but also they can evaluate the quality of a product independently of brand recognition”. Footnote 81 Even the communication function of trademarks is likely to have less effect on AI systems. The communication function entails two aspects – informational and expressive. The informational aspect may have some relevance to the AI decision-making process, as AI systems may possess the ability to attach specific meanings to descriptive elements of trademarks. However, the expressive aspect of the communication function is not likely to have any influence. For instance, “Volvo” and “BMW” not only function as indications of origin but also convey a particular image – of safe driving , in the case of the former, and of driving pleasure , in the case of the latter. Footnote 82 However, AI systems are unlikely to be influenced by the expressive features of such trademarks. This does not mean that AI systems will not make assessments about the safety, comfort, or other characteristics of products. But such assessments will be based on available data without reference to the trademarks under which products are sold. In other words, when a consumer decides to rely on AI to purchase goods or services, the AI’s search for suitable products for its human principal will be “trademark neutral”. The AI’s purchasing decisions, selections and choices are likely to be objective, based on data, and to cater specifically to the tangible requirements of the consumer.

The discussion above suggests that when interconnected devices and machines powered by AI begin to make purchasing decisions, they are unlikely to interact with trademarks in the same way humans do. Notably, the origin function of trademarks (their essential function) and the secondary functions (of quality assurance, advertising, investment, and communication) will not have the same effect. But this does not mean that trademarks will play no role when AI makes purchasing decisions. For instance, just as with human consumers, it is possible that AI systems will treat trademarks as a proxy for product quality or other characteristics. However, this would not be in the same way as for humans. Humans rely on their past experience of a particular product (or a recommendation of a past user of a product) as a reference for future purchases of the same product or similar products sold under the same trademark. In contrast, AI systems neither consume nor experience products. AI systems do not (and will not) possess the innate ability to associate product quality with trademarks on the basis of past experience. However, AI systems can generate positive or negative perceptions about a particular product or range of products sold under a given trademark on the basis of available data, such as customer reviews, statistics, certifications, and other similar attributes. Once AI forms such a perception, AI systems will likely use trademarks to determine whether certain brands should be included or excluded from the AI’s search parameters. Indeed, machine learning has already enabled AI systems to sense and recognize human emotions and respond to them accordingly. Footnote 83 Thus, when humans begin to use AI to assist them with or replace them in the product purchasing process, it is likely that AI systems will learn about the preferences of their human principals on the basis of how the latter experience the purchased products. Thus, inferentially, AI will have the capacity to associate trademarks with product quality.

In essence, although the functions of trademarks will not have the same effect on AI systems as they do on humans, AI will likely use trademarks when making purchasing decisions. This means that interconnected devices and machines powered by AI systems will interact with trademarks in the future contemplated in this paper. As such, there is great utility in digging deeper into the “AI-trademark” interface, which we do next in this paper, where we consider some of the fundamental concepts that underpin trademark protection, namely the definition of “signs” eligible for trademark protection, the concept of “distinctiveness”, the “trademark use” requirement and the analysis of “confusion” in the infringement context.

3.2 “Signs” Beyond Human Perception

While interconnected and intelligent devices and machines are likely to interact with conventional trademarks, albeit not in the same way that humans do, it is also possible that a new breed of unconventional “signs” will emerge that could enable such devices and machines to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others. Examples of such unconventional signs include QR codes, bar codes, and RFID tags. These machine-readable formats can capture a wide range of information, including trademark-specific information about a given product. They are “signs” insofar as they contain information that can facilitate the function of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others. Indeed, when humans begin to employ AI to assist or replace them in the process of making purchasing decisions, it is likely that AI systems will interact directly with machine-readable formats and rely on them to ascertain product-specific information, including the trademark under which a product is sold. Thus, just as conventional trademarks enable humans to distinguish between products of different traders, machine-readable formats, such as QR codes, will enable interconnected and intelligent devices and machines to make the same distinctions without human intervention. In other words, machine-readable formats are capable of performing the essential, if not primary, function of trademarks – i.e. to indicate origin. But are such machine-readable formats “signs” within the meaning that is usually attached to “trademarks”? While this question might sound intriguing, if not even absurd, there is utility in responding to it, as we explain below.

Take the following hypothetical example. Assume that a trader, in contemplation of the future postulated by this paper, begins to represent its registered trademark in the form of a QR code. That is to say that the trader digitally embodies its existing trademark in a QR code. The QR code is unique, and it stores the trader’s trademark in a secure blockchain along with other information relating to a given product of the trader. The trader places the QR code on its products and displays it on websites, social media platforms, and online marketplaces where it lists its products for sale. When the QR code is scanned, the trader’s trademark becomes visible, and the information thus obtained can be used to verify the authenticity of the underlying product. In essence, the QR code is a digital representation of the trader’s trademark in a machine-readable format. Now assume that an invidious and shrewd counterfeiter manages to duplicate the trader’s QR code and uses it in connection with the sale of counterfeit products. Assume also that the counterfeiter succeeds in manipulating the underlying data represented by the QR code, which, despite the immutable nature of blockchain, cannot be ruled out, owing to the numerous vulnerabilities. Footnote 84 Lastly, assume that AI systems in search of the trader’s authentic products are misled by the duplicate QR code and are directed to the counterfeiter’s products instead.

In the hypothetical example set out above, has the counterfeiting trader committed a trademark infringement? Two related questions arise in this regard. First, are machine-readable formats as such capable of being registered as trademarks to begin with? If the answer to this is in the affirmative, the unauthorized act of duplicating and utilizing a QR code, as in the hypothetical example above, could amount to an infringement. Second, and in any case, does the unauthorized duplication and use of such machine-readable formats in relation to the sale of third-party products amount to an infringing use of the trademarks they digitally embody and represent as part of the “information” they hold? If the answer to this is in the affirmative, the unauthorized act of duplicating and utilising a QR code, as in the hypothetical example above, could amount to an infringement, even if the QR code as such is not a registered trademark .

3.2.1 Are Machine-Readable Formats Registrable as Trademarks?

The answer to this question must begin with a reference to the definition of trademarks. Trademarks have conventionally been understood as “signs” that indicate the origin of goods or services to which they relate. This is clear from the definition of trademarks as it appears in the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Footnote 85 which is an important source of international intellectual property law, as it binds all member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO). TRIPS defines a trademark in Art. 15(1) as “[a]ny sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings”. Footnote 86 TRIPS also provides that “[s]uch signs, in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements and combinations of colours as well as any combination of such signs, shall be eligible for registration as trademarks”. Footnote 87 In addition, TRIPS permits WTO members to confine trademarks to signs that are “visually perceptible”. Footnote 88

From the provision in TRIPS referred to above and the examples set out therein, it appears that for signs to function as trademarks, they must be capable of “human perception”. Although the definition of a trademark as it appears in the first sentence of Art. 15(1) of TRIPS does not expressly say so, the examples set out in the said provision, and the possibility to confine trademarks to visually perceptible signs indicate that signs must be capable of being perceived by humans before they are to be treated as trademarks. However, since the visual perceptibility requirement is optional, it is logical to suggest that signs can function as trademarks as long as they can be perceived by any of the human senses – i.e. vision (or sight), audition (or hearing), olfaction (or smell), gustation (or taste), or taction (or touch).

Indeed, the following observations in a recent publication of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has recognized the importance of human perception in determining the registrability of trademarks and their infringement:

Trade marks are intended to distinguish the origin of goods and services and to prevent consumer confusion. Current trade mark law is therefore based on concepts of human perceptions and recollection both for determining whether a trademark is registrable and whether it is infringed … Footnote 89

In essence, human perceptibility is a minimum threshold requirement for a sign to be eligible for registration as a trademark. However, not everything that we can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel qualifies as a “sign” within the meaning of trademark law. Unless such signs are “ capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings”, they cannot be regarded as trademarks for registration purposes. According to an authoritative commentary on TRIPS, Art. 15(1) makes protectability of signs and combinations of signs as a trademark depend on their abstract capability to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Footnote 90 In some jurisdictions, the “capacity to distinguish” criterion has been used as a threshold requirement that a sign must meet before it is examined for distinctiveness/descriptiveness. Footnote 91 This means that signs that do not meet this minimum threshold will, from the outset, not qualify as trademarks. Thus, it is not surprising that the transparent bin or collection chamber of a vacuum cleaner, Footnote 92 the shape of a forklift truck, torch or wristwatch, Footnote 93 the three-dimensional shape of an ivory-coloured tile used for playing SCRABBLE, Footnote 94 and the shape of a pipe fitting as represented by a two-dimensional image Footnote 95 failed to qualify as “signs”, because none of them were able to meet the relatively low threshold of “capacity to distinguish”. The upshot of this is that for any sign to become registrable as a trademark, it must impart “information” that is not only capable of human perception but also possesses the capacity to distinguish the goods or services of one trader from those of others.

Insofar as machine-readable formats are concerned, the trademark-specific information they embody, which enables the distinguishing function, cannot be perceived by any of the human senses. Consumers require the assistance of an intermediate device (e.g. a QR code scanner or bar code reader) to gain access to the trademark-specific information that such machine-readable formats embody. A distinction has to be drawn between the visually perceivable elements of machine-readable formats ( see Figs. 1 , 2 , 3 ) and the information they contain. Once this distinction is drawn, it should become immediately apparent that the perceivable features of such machine-readable formats are difficult to categorize as “signs” within our conventional understanding of trademark law.

Image of a QR code generated using an online tool comprising the following text: “MY TRADEMARK This is an authentic product”

Image of a bar code

Image of an RFID tag

Indeed, given the widespread prevalence and use of QR codes, bar codes, and RFID tags as sources of information, the public associate such machine-readable formats with their functional use – i.e. as tools that provide information upon scanning. A consumer who sees a machine-readable format attached to a product or listing on a website will not associate it with a single undertaking, although the information contained in it would enable the consumer to determine the trademark under which the product is sold, the details of the manufacturer, and a wide range of product-specific information. Thus, insofar as consumers are concerned, machine-readable formats are purely functional tools devoid of distinctive character. Footnote 96 Importantly, if a machine-readable format, such as a QR code, is registered as a trademark, this would essentially grant the registrant a monopoly over the use of such formats, leading to anti-competitive outcomes. Footnote 97 For this reason, permitting machine-readable formats “as such” to be registered as trademarks is unquestionably contrary to the public interest.

From all of the above, it is clear that although machine-readable formats can embody information that performs the distinguishing function, they are not likely to be regarded as “signs” within our current understanding of trademark law. However, in the future anticipated by this paper, we are likely to see interconnected and smart devices and machines interacting directly with machine-readable formats, such as QR codes, in order to distinguish the goods and services offered by one trader from those of others when making purchasing decisions for their human principals. In other words, such devices and machines will begin to perceive machine-readable formats embodying trademark-specific information as “signs” capable of performing the distinguishing function. Thus, if we look at trademark law from a slightly different vantage point – i.e. from the perspective of devices and machines as opposed to that of humans – it is likely that unique and distinct machine-readable formats may be regarded as “signs”. So, should trademark law alter its perception and extend beyond the human realm to embrace that of the machine? Given the advancements in AI, IoT, and blockchain technology, and the real possibility that interconnected devices and machines will interact directly with trademarks embodied in machine-readable formats, we posit that this question will require a response in the not-so-distant future.

3.2.2 Can the Unauthorized Third-Party Use of Machine-Readable Formats Amount to a Trademark Infringement?

Although machine-readable formats are unlikely to be registered as trademarks ( on a conventional understanding of trademark law ), there is still a need to address the second question posed above – i.e. whether the unauthorized duplication and use of machine-readable formats that digitally embody trademarks can amount to an infringement. Merely because machine-readable formats do not qualify for registration as trademarks, it does not necessarily follow that the unauthorized use of such machine-readable formats by third parties in relation to competing or counterfeit goods or services will not be regarded as a trademark infringement. Here, the question focuses on the third party’s “use” of a sign, and there is room for trademark law to be extended incrementally to meet the novel context of machine-readable formats.

In order to determine whether the unauthorized duplication and use of machine-readable formats that embody trademark-specific information amount to a trademark infringement, it is necessary to consult the key ingredients of infringement. In this regard, TRIPS provides that:

The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. Footnote 98

On the basis of the TRIPS provision above, to succeed in an infringement suit, the proprietor of a trademark must establish that a third party, without having obtained the trademark proprietor’s consent, had, in the course of trade, made use of a sign that is identical or similar to that proprietor’s registered trademark in respect of identical or similar goods or services in circumstances where such unauthorized use results in a likelihood of confusion . Confusion can be presumed in double-identity cases – i.e. where the unauthorized third party’s sign is identical to the proprietor’s registered mark and is used for identical goods or services. Footnote 99 Accordingly, it becomes clear that a vital ingredient of infringement is the unauthorized third-party’s use of a sign that is identical or similar to a registered trademark. Furthermore, that use must be in the course of trade and in relation to identical or similar goods or services . Collectively, these requirements are referred to as the “use requirement”. In some jurisdictions, the use requirement is couched in terms of “trademark use”. That is, the unauthorized third party must first have made use of a sign “as a trademark”. Footnote 100 Notably, in the European Union, the CJEU added a further layer to the use requirement when it held that “the use, by a third party, of a sign identical with, or similar to, the proprietor’s trade mark implies, at the very least, that that third party uses the sign in its own commercial communication ” [emphasis added]. Footnote 101

Whether or not the hypothetical counterfeiter in our example above has committed an infringement depends on how its conduct satisfies the use requirement set out above. What is notable here is that the counterfeiter has duplicated or copied a QR code, which is a machine-readable format . As noted earlier, a QR code (or any other machine-readable format) as such is not a “sign”, as it is not capable of being perceived by any of the human senses and is purely functional . Therefore, it might appear ex facie that no infringement has been committed, as the counterfeiter has not used a sign to begin with.

However, by duplicating the QR code and using it for the sale of counterfeit goods, the counterfeiting trader has also effectively made use of the trademark-specific information that the QR code embodies. This information incorporates the proprietor’s registered trademark. Thus, when the counterfeiting trader duplicates and uses the QR code for its own goods or services, it does, in effect, make use of a sign that is identical (if not similar) to that of the proprietor’s mark. However, the trademark-specific information that machine-readable formats embody cannot be perceived by human consumers (unless a machine or device is used). This means that the counterfeiter’s use of any sign as embodied in the information held by the machine-readable format is not visible to consumers. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is no infringing use of the sign in question. In this regard, it is helpful to refer to judicial decisions in infringement cases involving the use of trademarks as metatags and in keyword advertising .

Metatags are discrete sections of HTML Footnote 102 code embedded in a website in which text can be inserted, setting out keywords and descriptions relevant to the website’s contents. Footnote 103 Among other things, metatags are used by search engines to prioritize their natural search results. Footnote 104 Thus, metatags can provide websites with much-needed visibility on the internet. Ordinarily, metatags do not give rise to trademark-related issues. However, when a website incorporates metatags that are identical or similar to a registered trademark, problems could arise, particularly when the website does not belong to the registered proprietor of the trademark. Indeed, numerous disputes have arisen between trademark proprietors and owners of third-party websites where the use of metatags corresponding to trademarks has been challenged. Thus, for instance, courts in the United States, Footnote 105 Canada, Footnote 106 India, Footnote 107 and Australia Footnote 108 have held that the use of a trademark embedded as a metatag in a website’s HTML code could amount to a trademark infringement, which must also mean that such use of trademarks meets the threshold use requirement. In the European Union, courts in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and Spain have supported the view that the use of trademarks as metatags can be infringing. Footnote 109 At the highest level, the CJEU has had the opportunity to consider whether the term “advertising”, as defined in the EU Directive on Misleading and Comparative Advertising, Footnote 110 extends to metatags hidden within the internal code of websites. In this regard, the CJEU ruled that:

it is irrelevant in that regard that the metatags are invisible to the internet user and that they are directly addressed not to that user, but to the search engine. It suffices to note in that regard that, according to those provisions, the concept of advertising expressly encompasses any form of representation , and therefore including indirect forms of representation, particularly where they are capable of influencing the economic behaviour of consumers and, therefore, of affecting the competitor whose name or goods are referred to by the metatags . [emphasis added] Footnote 111

The Court also observed that “[t]here is, moreover, no doubt that such use of metatags is a promotion strategy in that it aims to encourage the internet user to visit the site of the metatag user and to take an interest in its goods or services”. Footnote 112 Accordingly, the CJEU concluded that metatags amounted to a “representation” within the meaning of the term “advertising”. The CJEU’s observations indicate that the lack of visibility of metatags will not prevent a finding that they are representations capable of influencing the economic behaviour of consumers. On that logic, it may be argued that when signs identical or similar to trademarks are embedded in the metatags of websites, their lack of visibility to the consumer alone cannot be used as a ground to deny an infringement claim. While this point of view finds support in academic commentaries, Footnote 113 it has also been opposed. Footnote 114 However, courts across many jurisdictions have made it clear that the invisibility of metatags will not generally defeat the use requirement under trademark law.

The series of keyword advertising cases further strengthens the proposition that invisible uses of trademarks are not excluded from the scope of infringement merely because of their lack of visibility. Keyword advertising refers to the practice of utilising keywords to trigger advertisements or sponsored links that target users of search engines. Popular search engines, including Google, offer this service. This is not a controversial practice. However, just as with metatags, disputes can occur when a third party uses a sign identical to a trademark as a keyword when advertising competing goods or services. Footnote 115 As such, it is not surprising that the practice of keyword advertising has been challenged by trademark proprietors in lawsuits filed around the world. In all of these cases, a key question that occupied the minds of judges was whether the selection and use of trademarks as keywords, which is a purely internal matter between the advertiser and the search engine , satisfied the use requirement for the purposes of establishing an infringement. While a small number of courts have responded in the negative, Footnote 116 courts in the United States, Footnote 117 the United Kingdom, Footnote 118 the European Union, Footnote 119 and India Footnote 120 have responded in the affirmative. Since the use of trademarks in the selection of keywords and the triggering of advertisements is not visible to consumers (i.e. users of search engines), the keyword advertising cases make it clear that visibility is not a prerequisite for the use requirement under trademark law.

The discussion on metatags and keyword advertising demonstrates that “invisible” uses made of trademarks by unauthorized third parties are not shielded from liability under trademark law on that ground alone. The metatag and keyword advertising case precedents can be extended incrementally and by analogy to the use of trademarks in machine-readable formats. After all, any use made of trademarks in machine-readable formats is invisible (cannot be directly perceived by humans), just as it is when trademarks are used as metatags or keywords to trigger advertisements on search engines. Therefore, it is possible that the unauthorized duplication and use of machine-readable formats that digitally embody trademarks can amount to trademark infringement despite the “information” that such machine-readable formats hold being “invisible” to human consumers. However, much would depend on the nature of the use made. For instance, trademark law should not prevent a trader from incorporating trademarks into a QR code if the objective of doing so is to inform consumers of the various genuine products that the trader sells as a second-hand seller or parallel importer ( where such parallel imports are lawful ). In contrast, where an invidious trader incorporates a trademark into his QR code, as in the hypothetical example that we have set out, to pass off counterfeit goods as genuine branded items, the aggrieved trademark proprietor should have a remedy under trademark law. In this regard, it is necessary to take the view that incorporating trademark-specific information into machine-readable formats satisfies the threshold use requirement, which is a key ingredient for establishing infringement. Indeed, when human consumers begin to employ interconnected and intelligent devices and machines to make purchasing decisions on their behalf, such devices and machines will directly interact with machine-readable formats that incorporate trademarks. To cater to this future, there is a need to ensure that trademark law can capture the “invisible” use of signs in machine-readable formats to guarantee that such formats are not used in ways that infringe the rights of trademark proprietors.

But any prospect of success in a trademark infringement suit depends on a likelihood of confusion being established on the part of human consumers. Even if it can be said that the use of trademarks in machine-readable formats amounts to use in a trademark sense, unless such use is likely to cause confusion, infringement cannot be established (unless, of course, it is a case of “double identity”, where confusion can be presumed). As such, it is necessary to consider how the requirement of confusion applies to a world where humans begin to employ devices and machines to assist or replace them in the process of making purchasing decisions.

3.3 “Machine” Confusion?

Confusion is unfavourable to efficient markets. It increases consumer search costs. Footnote 121 Trademarks seek to eliminate confusion. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the concept of confusion is deeply entrenched in trademark law. And so, both when granting trademark rights and when determining infringements, intellectual property offices and courts have long employed the test of confusion. In the context of trademark registration, signs that are identical or confusingly similar to existing trademarks are disqualified, as granting protection to such signs would increase confusion in the market. Similarly, when an unauthorized third party makes use of a sign that is identical or similar to a registered trademark in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, such use must be prohibited to promote efficiency in the market.

But how do we assess confusion? And, more importantly, who must be confused? These are questions that are worth considering in light of the machine-dominated future contemplated by this paper. Interestingly, when TRIPS defines the rights of registered trademark proprietors, it provides that right holders can prevent the unauthorized use of their registered trademarks “where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion”. Footnote 122 The provision in TRIPS does not explicitly tell us who must be confused – it merely provides that the unauthorized third-party’s use of a registered trademark must result in a likelihood of confusion for such use to be prohibited by law. However, when we consult the body of case law emerging from national courts and the CJEU’s jurisprudence in the context of the European Union, it becomes patently clear that confusion is assessed from the perspective of human consumers. This has implications for how we measure confusion in situations where humans begin to use interconnected and intelligent devices and machines to assist them with or replace them in making purchasing decisions.

In the European Union, the likelihood of confusion is determined through a global assessment that considers several relevant factors. The CJEU has made this clear when it ruled that the appreciation of the likelihood of confusion depends on “numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, of the association which can be made with the used or registered sign, of the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified”. Footnote 123 The determination of confusion is interdependent on the relevant factors, particularly the similarity between the trademarks under scrutiny and the degree of similarity in the competing goods. Footnote 124 A lesser degree of similarity between the competing goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the competing trademarks and vice versa . Footnote 125 The similarity between two trademarks is determined on the basis of their visual, aural and conceptual similarity. Footnote 126 The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the trademarks under comparison “must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components ” [emphasis added]. Footnote 127 It is argued that consumers rarely have the opportunity to compare trademarks in the market directly, side by side, and must rely on their imperfect recollection , which is limited to the most dominant and distinctive elements of a trademark. Footnote 128 Significantly, the global assessment of confusion is determined from the perspective of the average consumer of the type of goods or services in question. Footnote 129 The average consumer is one who is “reasonably well informed” and “reasonably observant and circumspect”. Footnote 130 In the context of the internet, it is a consumer who is “normally informed and reasonably attentive”. Footnote 131

In the United States, a number of tests have been formulated by the federal circuit courts comprising multiple factors to assess the incidence of confusion in trademark infringement cases. For instance, the courts in the Second Circuit employ the factors formulated in Polaroid v. Polarad , Footnote 132 commonly known as the Polaroid test , while the courts in the Third Circuit apply the Lapp test , formulated in Interpace v. Lapp . Footnote 133 Although the factors detailed in these tests and their phrasing vary, they tend to commonly include the following factors – the strength of the registered trademark; the similarity between the trademarks under comparison; the type of goods involved or the proximity of the products; the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser or the sophistication of the consumers; and evidence of actual confusion. These factors share some common elements with the global appreciation standard employed in the European Union. For instance, when comparing two trademarks, the question posed under US law is not whether they can be distinguished when compared side by side, but rather, when they are compared overall, whether they are sufficiently similar that there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods or services. Footnote 134 When comparing trademarks, “[a]ll relevant facts pertaining to appearance, sound, and connotation must be considered before similarity as to one or more of those factors may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are similar or dissimilar”. Footnote 135 The “sight, sound and meaning” analysis is comparable to the assessment of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between trademarks under EU trademark law. Footnote 136 Importantly, when evaluating similarities between trademarks, emphasis is placed on the recollection of the average consumer who typically retains a general, and not a specific, impression of trademarks. Footnote 137

But can a test that is centred around the average human consumer be applied to situations of confusion with regard to origin that might arise when machines assist or replace humans in making purchasing decisions? Unless the likelihood of confusion test is calibrated suitably, it will not be possible to extend its application to novel forms of confusion that may arise in a machine-dominated world. We set out a few areas where adjustments may be required.

First, trademark law presumes confusion in double-identity cases (i.e. where an unauthorized third party makes use of an identical sign for identical goods or services ). In such cases, the risk of confusion is deemed so obvious ( to humans, of course! ) that it can be presumed. Footnote 138 However, can we say the same when interconnected and intelligent devices and machines make purchasing decisions on behalf of their human principals? Will AI systems be as gullible as humans? Grynberg does not seem to think so, as is evident from the following observation that appears in his work:

Can it be confused or gamed? We can imagine a range of possibilities here including, at the far end, the prospect of an “omniscient” AI that cannot be misdirected by a false use of a trademark. But even short of that, we might picture lesser Ads with superhuman resistance to deception. An Al that outperforms humans generally may still deliver the occasional “wrong” result due to external manipulation, but its capacity to learn should make these errors unlikely to recur. Footnote 139

As we have noted earlier in this paper, given the capability of AI to make use of a multitude of factors when making purchasing decisions, it is likely that machines will not be as vulnerable as humans in double-identity cases. If so, there may be no need for a presumption of likelihood of confusion.

Second, adjustments will be required as to how confusion, and particularly how similarity between trademarks, is assessed. As we noted before, the use of AI assistants (such as Alexa) is on the rise, and this is already altering how humans interact with trademarks. Here, the consumer is assisted by smart devices and intelligent AI algorithms in making purchasing decisions, although the consumer retains control over the final choice. Given that consumers are more likely to interact with AI assistants using their voice, there may be a need to place greater emphasis on the phonetic or aural similarity between trademarks as opposed to their visual or conceptual similarity. Footnote 140

And moving beyond AI assistants to a future where humans fully automate the process of product purchasing and divest their discretion to machines, further adjustments to the confusion test will be required. In this regard, Curtis and Platts have pointed out that “when AI is the consumer” (which is a strange proposition because an artificial construct cannot truly “consume”), the AI will not suffer from human “faults”. Footnote 141 Thus, unlike the average consumer, the legal fiction Footnote 142 fundamental to the analysis of the likelihood of confusion, Footnote 143 machines will not suffer from defects such as imperfect recollection . This means that, when presented with similar trademarks, machines will be capable of spotting even minute differences. That is to say, the comparison will not be limited to the distinctive and dominant elements of the marks being compared. The upshot of all this is that, unlike humans, machines will not easily be confused. Footnote 144 This will make it necessary to heighten the standard for assessing the likelihood of confusion.

Third, adjustments will have to be made to the central focus of the analysis of the likelihood of confusion – the average consumer. As noted above, when machines assist humans in their purchasing decisions, the average consumer will not be one who is “reasonably well informed” and “reasonably observant and circumspect”. The consumer will be better informed , fully observant and less susceptible to deception and confusion. However, when humans are replaced by machines in the process of making purchasing decisions, the law will no longer be able to rely on the notion of an average consumer, as humans will not be involved at the point of purchase. For instance, in the hypothetical example we set out earlier in this paper, Footnote 145 when an AI system is misled by a duplicate QR code and ends up purchasing a counterfeit product assuming it to be genuine, there is only machine confusion at the point of purchase . Any human consumer confusion takes place afterwards when the product is delivered. Thus, if we are to find an infringement in the hypothetical example, it can only be on the basis of post-sale confusion . Footnote 146 But the assessment of post-sale confusion has conventionally focused on “observers of the goods that are already purchased and in use”. Footnote 147 This means that the test for post-sale confusion does not assist in determining confusion among actual purchasers of products. Footnote 148 Also, the post-sale confusion doctrine may not necessarily apply to services , which, unlike goods, may not be readily observable by the general public. As such, there may be a need to tweak the post-sale confusion test to include not only the general public who might observe a product in use but also the actual purchaser of the product (who had employed a device or machine to make the purchasing decision). Alternatively, trademark law may need to shift from requiring human confusion at the point of purchase and be willing to embrace the notion of machine confusion . But such radical changes to trademark doctrine will only happen incrementally and with time, Footnote 149 when humans slowly but surely disappear at the point of purchase (as we contemplate in this paper!).

4 Conclusion

The central argument of this paper is that advancements in AI, IoT, and blockchain technology present a unique challenge to our conventional understanding of trademark law. This challenge arises from the potential displacement of human consumers by machines at the point of purchase, leading to conflicts between preserving existing trademark doctrines and adapting to technological advancements. Our primary assertion is that current trademark law is inadequately equipped to handle this shift.

Interconnected and intelligent machines and devices will assist, if not replace, humans in critical areas of decision-making. The retail sector will not be immune to this shift. It is only a matter of time. And when this happens, trademarks, their proprietors, and the law governing their protection will have to respond. In this paper, we have made a modest attempt to reflect on how developments in AI, IoT, and blockchain technology are likely to impact trademarks and their role in commerce. In particular, we noted that adapting our current understanding of trademark law to a world dominated by machines is anything but straightforward. The human consumer is a critical component of trademark doctrine. It is not possible to easily remove the human from trademark law without the latter crumbling and breaking down into incoherence. Thus, it may be best not to do so.

Instead, policymakers should think “outside the box”. Digitizing trademarks, by transforming them into machine-readable formats and storing them on the blockchain, enables both consumers and machines of the future to verify the authenticity and provenance of products. This process closely aligns with the concept of “Technology Protection Measures” or TPMs. Footnote 150 And when a deceitful trader duplicates, manipulates and applies a digital or smart trademark for third-party goods or services, including the sale of counterfeits, such acts closely resemble the circumvention of a TPM. So far, copyright law has dominated the discourse on TPMs. Perhaps it is time to alter the status quo and think about TPMs for trademarks. This would empower trademark proprietors to specifically address unauthorized acts of duplication, circumvention, and misleading use of their digital/smart trademarks in machine-readable formats without having to rely on conventional approaches to trademark law. This approach directly addresses the need for a more technologically adaptive trademark law. We bring our discussion to an end by urging and encouraging further research into TPMs and trademarks so that trademark law can be developed to address technological developments more directly.

Moerland and Freitas ( 2021 ), p. 267.

Sales ( 2021 ), p. 24.

Chesterman ( 2021 ), p.1.

Warner Jr. ( 1992 ), p. 54.

Ofcom ( 2019 ), p. 4.

Calo ( 2018 ), pp. 406–407.

See e.g. Mostert ( 2017 ), pp. 10–11; Mertens ( 2018 ), p. 37.

Binns ( 2019 ).

See Entrupy’s website under FAQs. https://www.entrupy.com/faq/ . Accessed 22 June 2022.

Nemoto ( 2021 ).

Iddenden ( 2021 ).

Batty ( 2022 ), pp. 140–141.

Selvapandian et al. ( 2020 ), p. 871.

See e.g. Curtis and Platts ( 2019 ), pp. 44–45.

Yim ( 2022 ).

See Allal-Chérif et al. ( 2021 ), p. 70.

Capisizu ( 2018 ), p. 523.

Haller et al. ( 2008 ), p. 15.

Smith ( 2019 ), pp. 853–858.

Sloane et al. ( 2020 ), pp. 1248–1249 (“Some brand owners are also adopting or currently testing forensic and tracking technologies to help verify the authenticity of their goods. These technologies include QR codes (or similar technology), RFID (radio-frequency identification) tools, and other real-time tracking tools”).

Paez and La Marca ( 2016 ), p. 32 (“Enterprises throughout different industries are also increasingly utilizing loT logistics applications to automate and streamline their supply chain management processes”).

Haller et al. ( 2008 ), p. 23.

See e.g. Pezoulas et al. ( 2020 ), p. 142.

Koonce ( 2016 ), p. 3.

Marvin ( 2017 ).

Pech ( 2020 ), pp. 1–2.

Hugendubel ( 2021 ), p. 3.

See Rose ( 2020 ).

See Australian IP Office’s website. https://smarttrademark.search.ipaustralia.gov.au/ . Accessed 11 September 2022.

Ruston ( 1955 ), p. 128; Nasser ( 2008 ), p. 100.

Diamond ( 1983 ), p. 223.

Ruston ( 1955 ), p. 128.

Diamond ( 1983 ), pp. 222–229.

Paster ( 1967 ), p. 554.

See e.g. Hanover Star Milling v. Metcalf 240 U.S. 403, 412–413 (1916) (US Supreme Court); E & J Gallo Winery v. Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 144, [52] (High Court of Australia); Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. Petra Foods Ltd [2016] SGCA 64, [38] (Singapore Court of Appeal).

See e.g. Case C-206/01, Arsenal Football Club plc v. Matthew Reed [2002] ECR I-10273, [48] (“In that context, the essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of origin of the marked goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin”).

Diamond ( 1983 ), p. 224.

Hannak ( 1974 ), p. 363.

Paster ( 1967 ), p. 552 (“as soon as a particular maker, by the excellence of his manufacture acquired a reputation outside of his immediate locality, in order to visualize and perpetuate that reputation he adopted and used a mark to distinguish his product from others”).

Schechter ( 1927 ), p. 816 (“It has been repeatedly pointed out by the very courts that insist on defining trademarks in terms of ownership or origin that, owing to the ramifications of modern trade and the national and international distribution of goods from the manufacturer through the jobber or importer and the retailer to the consumer, the source or origin of the goods bearing a well known trademark is seldom known to the consumer”); Hannak ( 1974 ), p. 364 (“Consumers rarely know or care about the origin of a product”).

Schechter ( 1927 ), p. 816.

See e.g. Thomas Pride Mills Inc v. Monsanto Co 1967 WL 7489 (US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 14 June 1967), *3 (“The primary functions of a trademark are to indicate a single source of origin of the articles to which it refers and to offer assurance to ultimate consumers that articles so labeled will conform to quality standards established and, when licensed to others, controlled by the trademark proprietor”).

Case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA v. Bellure NV [2009] ECR I-05185 ( L’Oréal ), [58]; Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA [2010] ECR I-02417 ( Google ), [77].

Google , [91].

Id. at [92].

Case C-Case C[323/09, Interflora Inc v. Marks & Spencer plc [2011] ECR I-08625, [62].

Kur ( 2014 ), p. 12.

L’Oréal , Opinion of AG Mengozzi.

Id. at [54].

Fernandez-Mora ( 2021 ), p. 1397.

See e.g. Dreyfuss ( 1990 ), pp. 397–398; Gangjee ( 2013 ), p. 35; Keller and Swaminathan ( 2020 ), p. 119.

See e.g. Matal v. Tam 137 S. Ct. 1744 at 1760 (2017) (“… trademarks often have an expressive content. Companies spend huge amounts to create and publicize trademarks that convey a message. It is true that the necessary brevity of trademarks limits what they can say. But powerful messages can sometimes be conveyed in just a few words”). Arguably, it is the expressive function of marks that make parodies and other expressive uses of trademarks possible. The famous “Barbie Doll” cases demonstrate this. See Mattel Inc v. Walking Mountain Productions 353 F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Mattel, through impressive marketing, has established Barbie as ‘the ideal American woman’ and a ‘symbol of American girlhood’ for many”); Mattel Inc v. MCA Records Inc 28 F.Supp.2d 1120 (1998) (confirming that “Barbie” represented certain values ).

Landes and Posner ( 2003 ), p. 167.

Qualitex Co v. Jacobson Products Co Inc 514 US 159, 163 (1995).

Economides ( 1988 ), p. 526.

Grynberg ( 2019 ), p. 204 (“But Al shoppers will have the capability and patience to gather and process far more distinguishing context than humans. A trademark may just be one input among many considered by the Al …”).

Id. at p. 208 (“It may be helpful to use a brand as a proxy, but at the end of the day, an APPLE MacBook is not an APPLE MacBook AIR is not an APPLE MacBook Pro is not an APPLE iPhone 7 (or 8 or 9 or X) is not an APPLE iPad, and so on. Strong marks may cause us to overlook distinctions of this sort”).

Denicola ( 1996 ), p. 77 (“Trademarks could be understood as indications, not necessarily of physical origin , but of a more general connection between the trademark owner and the trademarked goods ”).

Roberts ( 2016 ).

Vítová ( 2018 ), p.5.

Roberts ( 2016 ) (“In the UK, chocolate manufacturers have to include a minimum of 20% cocoa in their bars. In the US, this figure is significantly lower, as companies can release chocolate that contains as little as 10% cocoa”).

Glennie ( 1999 ), p. 1102.

Dinwoodie ( 2017 ), p. 1673.

Andrade ( 1993 ), p. 415.

Parallel imports are generally legitimate in countries that adopt a policy of international exhaustion of rights. But even in those countries, the law may create exceptions that allow trademark proprietors to object to parallel imports in limited circumstances.

The European Union adopts a policy of regional exhaustion of rights. Thus, parallel trade is permitted provided that it takes place between EU Member States. But when parallel imports originate from outside the European Union, trademark proprietors may exercise their rights to prevent such imports even when they had been placed in the non-EU market by the proprietor or with the proprietor’s consent.

In counties that adopt a policy of national exhaustion, parallel imports are prohibited under the law.

For instance, AI systems are likely to be able to detect (on the basis of customer reviews, news reports etc.) that Cadbury products manufactured in the United States attract a negative consumer experience (i.e. are perceived as lower in quality) compared to Cadbury products manufactured in the United Kingdom. Thus, when AI systems make choices between identically described Cadbury products (e.g. “Cadbury Milk Chocolate”), they may favour products manufactured in the United Kingdom. Consumers may not have the capacity to make these distinctions unless they experience the difference in quality and exercise caution in making future purchases.

Ćapeta ( 2017 ), p. 139 (“Even if a robot is more capable of mastering all human formal knowledge, it is not capable of mastering feelings”).

Clocksin ( 2003 ), p. 1736.

Bakpayev et al ( 2022 ), p. 90.

Turkle ( 2005 ), p. 63.

Klaus and Zaichkowsky ( 2020 ), p. 390 (“Not only do bots lack brand loyalty but also they can evaluate the quality of a product independently of brand recognition”).

Fernandez-Mora ( 2021 ), p. 1398.

See e.g. Picard ( 2008 ), p. 413; Sourdin ( 2018 ), pp. 1128–1130.

See e.g. Castonguay and Smith ( 2020 ), pp. 367–380.

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) (TRIPS).

Id . at Art. 15(1) (first sentence).

Id . at Art. 15(1) (second sentence). This definition is used in trademark statutes and laws across the globe.

Id. at Art. 15(1) (last sentence) (“Members may require, as a condition of registration, that signs be visually perceptible”).

WIPO ( 2020 ), p. 12.

Schmidt-Pfitzner ( 2009 ), p. 307.

See Ng-Loy ( 2014 ), p. 334; Bently et al ( 2018 ), p. 971.

Case C-321/03, Dyson Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks [2007] ECR I-00687, [40] (“Accordingly, the answer to be given to the national court must be that Article 2 of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the subject-matter of an application for trade mark registration, such as that lodged in the main proceedings, which relates to all the conceivable shapes of a transparent bin or collection chamber forming part of the external surface of a vacuum cleaner, is not a ‘sign’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore is not capable of constituting a trade mark within the meaning thereof”).

Joined Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01, Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc and Rado Uhren AG v. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt [2003] ECR I-03161.

J W Spear& Son Ltd v. Zynga Inc [2013] FSR 28, [47] (“In my judgment the Tile Mark does not comply with the first condition for the following reasons. As Zynga rightly contends, the Tile Mark covers an infinite number of permutations of different sizes, positions and combinations of letter and number on a tile. Furthermore, it does not specify the size of the tile. Nor is the colour precisely specified. In short, it covers a multitude of different appearances of tile. It thus amounts to an attempt to claim a perpetual monopoly on all conceivable ivory-coloured tile shapes which bear any letter and number combination on the top surface. In my view that is a mere property of the goods and not a sign”).

National Fittings (MD) Sdn Bhd v. Oyster Plc [2006] 1 SLR(R) 712, [136] (This was a case decided by the Singapore High Court where the Court held that the marks in question did “not seem to be able to pass even the relatively low threshold criterion set out in the definition of a ‘trade mark’ in Sec. 2 of the TMA”).

Kulseth ( 2012 ), pp. 40–43.

To the naked eye, all QR codes look alike. This means that if a given QR code is registered as a trademark for a particular class of goods or services, no other trader dealing in the same or similar class of goods or services will be able to use a QR code for informational purposes, as the similarity of the QR codes would give rise to potential infringement.

TRIPS, Art. 16(1) (first sentence). Infringement provisions in trademark statutes and laws around the world are based on this provision.

Id . at Art. 16(1) (second sentence).

See e.g. Dogan and Lemley ( 2007 ), pp. 1675–1682 (providing the history of the doctrine under US trademark law); Psaroudakis ( 2012 ), p. 33 (for an explanation of the doctrine’s evolution under EU law).

Google , [56].

Stands for “HyperText Markup Language”, a markup language used in designing websites.

McCarthy ( 2005 ), p. 141.

Bouchoux ( 2018 ), p. 158.

See e.g. Brookfield Communications Inc v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation 74 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Using another’s trademark in one’s metatags is much like posting a sign with another's trademark in front of one’s store”); Niton Corporation v. Radiation Monitoring Devices Inc 27 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Mass. 1998) (finding that the defendant’s act of directly copying the plaintiff’s metatags and HTML code on its own website resulted in a diversion of the plaintiff’s customers); Promatek Industries Ltd v. Equitrac Corporation 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that the defendant’s reference to the plaintiff’s trademark in the metatags of the defendant’s web page was a violation of trademark law). North American Medical Corporation v. Axiom Worldwide Inc Civil Case No 1:06-CV-1678-JTC (N.D. Ga. Apr. 9, 2009) (“Axiom briefly argues that placing a competitor's trademarks within meta tags, which consumers never view, does not constitute a ‘use’ as required to find trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. However, we readily conclude that the facts of the instant case do involve a ‘use’ as contemplated in the Lanham Act – that is, a use in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods”).

See e.g. Pandi v. Fieldofwebs.com Ltd [2007] OJ No 2739 (QL) (the Supreme Court of Ontario recognized that the use of a competitor’s trademark in a website’s hidden code as metatags could amount to a trademark infringement). Cf. Red Label Vacations Inc v. 411 Travel Buys Ltd 2015 FCA 290 (the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Federal Court to the effect that “use of a competitor’s trademark or trade name in metatags does not, by itself , constitute a basis for a likelihood of confusion, because the consumer is still free to choose and purchase the goods or services from the website he or she initially searched for” ( Red Label Vacations Inc v. 411 Travel Buys Ltd 2015 FC 18 at [115]). However, the Federal Court of Appeal left open the possibility that use of trademarks in metatags could amount to an infringement when it observed that “in some situations, inserting a registered trade-mark (or trade-mark that is confusing with the registered trade-mark) in a metatag may constitute advertising of services that would give rise to a claim for infringement” 2015 FCA 290 at [22]). See also Bowden and Chen ( 2017 ), p. 57.

See e.g. Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Company 2013(53) PTC 112 (Delhi High Court, Divisional Bench) (although the Divisional Bench rejected the single judge’s decision on the legitimacy of parallel imports (i.e. the Divisional Bench held that parallel imports of genuine trademarked goods should be permitted), it affirmed the single judge’s order enjoining the appellant from using the respondent’s trademark as metatags in the former’s website on the basis that it was infringing and did not come within the norms of fair use); People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd v. Gaurav Jerry MIPR 2014 (3) 101 (Bombay High Court) (the Court held that “by illicitly plugging the Plaintiffs’ mark and domain name into his website’s web pages’ meta-tags, the 1st Defendant succeeded in diverting as much as 10.33% and 4.67% of the internet traffic away from the Plaintiffs to himself. There could be no better evidence of passing off, confusion and deception. This is, plainly, hijacking the Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill and riding piggyback on the Plaintiffs’ valuable intellectual property”); DRS Logistics (P) Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd 2021 (88) PTC 21, [86] (“Having noted the above Judgments, it is clear that the use of the mark as meta-tags was held to be infringement of trademark. It follows, that invisible use of trademark to divert the traffic from proprietors’ website to the advertisers’/infringers’ website shall amount to use of mark for the purpose of Section 29, which includes Section 29(6) and 29(8), related to advertising”).

See e.g. Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v. Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554, [435] (the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s trademarks as metatags in the HTML code of its website was regarded by the Australian Federal Court as amounting to “use as a trademark” for the purposes of infringement). Cf. Complete Technology Integrations Pty Ltd v. Green Energy Management Solutions Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1319.

See Thornton ( 2014 ), pp. 500–502.

See Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (codified version), Art. 2(a) (this EU directive repealed and replaced Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising, which applied before).

Case C-657/11, Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v. Bert Peelaers [2013] ETMR 45, [58].

Id. at [59].

See e.g. Posner ( 2000 ), p. 505 (“Thus, this Note concludes that trademark infringement, via initial interest confusion, offers the best doctrinal fit to the problem of manipulative metatagging and it urges all federal courts to follow the Brookfield court’s approach”); Paylago ( 2000 ), p. 470 (“Metatags are employed for the sole purpose of attracting potential customers to a web site. Therefore, the improper use of another’s trademarks in a site’s metatags amounts to a purposeful action to misdirect customers and generate pre-sale confusion. Because pre-sale confusion is not tolerated in typical business settings, it should not be tolerated on the internet. Consequently, courts should apply a pre-sale confusion doctrine to provide trademark holders an avenue of relief in the internet medium”).

See e.g. Widmaier ( 2004 ), p. 708 (“There ought to be no liability for invisible keyword and metatag use of another’s trademarks”); McCarthy ( 2005 ), p. 156 (“In a time of increasing scope of intellectual property rights protection, consumers must assert their right to use the tools of modern marketing (namely, trademarks) in a way that allows them more flexibility, not less. At the same time, those who have developed powerful trademarks should not be allowed to use trademark law to foreclose online competition”); Llewelyn and Reddy ( 2020 ), p. 425 (“even if policy makers feel tempted to tackle these issues, it is preferable to do so under a general advertising law rather than a law as specialized (and specific) as trade mark law”).

See Kilejian and Dahlstrom ( 2016 ), pp. 123–124.

For instance, the Australian Federal Court in Veda Advantage Limited v. Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Limited [2016] FCA 255 held that advertisers merely selected keywords to provide the search engine, and that this did not indicate a connection in the course of trade between their goods or services and those of others, as any use of the keyword was completely invisible to consumers (at [123]).

See e.g. Rescuecom Corp v. Google Inc 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009) (The Court held that Google’s acts of selling keywords that resembled the plaintiff’s trademarks was a use in commerce); Rosetta Stone Ltd v. Google Inc 676 F.3d 144 (2012) (Google admitted and the Court assumed that Google’s use of Rosetta Stone’s trademarks as part of its advertising programme was a use in commerce under the US Lanham Act).

See e.g. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd v. Amazon.co.uk Ltd [2014] EWHC 181 (Ch) (The Court found that Amazon infringed the plaintiff’s LUSH trademark by bidding on the Google keyword “lush” so that consumers who searched for “lush” on Google would be shown advertisements that related to Amazon’s own products and other third-party products sold on its platform).

See e.g. Google , [73] (“It follows from all of the foregoing that use by an advertiser of a sign identical with a trade mark as a keyword in the context of an internet referencing service falls within the concept of use ‘in relation to goods or services’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104”).

See e.g. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd 2021 (88) PTC 21 (where the Delhi High Court held that the use of a trademark as a keyword in the context of Google’s advertising programme amounted to an infringement although such use was not visible to users of the search engine).

See e.g. Dogan and Lemley ( 2004 ), pp. 786–787.

TRIPS, Art. 16(1).

Case C-251/95, SABEL BV v. Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport [1997] ECR I-06191 ( SABEL ), [22]. See also , C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-05507 ( Canon ), [16]; Case C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v. Klijsen Handel BV [1999] ECR I-03819 ( Lloyd ), [18]; Case C-425/98, Marca Mode CV v. Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV [2000] I-04861 ( Marca Mode ), [40]; Case C-120/04, Medion AG v. Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH [2005] ECR I-08551 ( Medion ), [27].

SABEL, [22]; Canon , [17]; Lloyd , [19]; Marca Mode , [40].

Canon , [17]; Lloyd , [19]; Marca Mode , [40].

SABEL , [23]; Lloyd , [19]; Medion , [28].

SABEL , [23]; Lloyd , [25]; Medion , [28] .

Lloyd , [25]. See also Case T-297/18, Wirecard Technologies GmbH v. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ECLI:EU:T:2019:160, Case T-443/12, Equinix (Germany) GmbH v. OHIM ECLI:EU:T:2013:605, [54]; Case T-700/18, Kalypso Media Group GmbH v. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ECLI:EU:T:2019:739, [45].

SABEL , [23].

Lloyd , [26].

Google , [84]; Case C-278/08, Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v. Günther Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH [2010] ECR I-02517, [36]; Case C-558/08, Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v. Primakabin BV [2010] I-06963, [35].

Polaroid Corp v. Polarad Electronics Corp 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir.1961).

Interpace Corp v. Lapp Inc 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983).

See e.g. Midwestern Pet Foods Inc v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. 685 F3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Edom Labs Inc v. Lichter 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012); In re Iolo Techs LLC 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010).

Recot Inc v. MC Becton 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Gangjee ( 2022 ), p. 9.

In re Cynosure Inc 90 USPQ2d 1644, 1645 (TTAB 2009).

Senftleben ( 2013 ), pp. 138–139.

Grynberg ( 2019 ), pp. 204–205.

Gangjee ( 2022 ), p. 4.

Curtis and Platts ( 2017 ), p. 12.

Laustsen ( 2020 ), p. 6.

Bently et al ( 2018 ), p. 1043.

Curtis and Platts ( 2019 ), p. 45.

See discussion above under “Signs” Beyond Human Perception .

McCarthy ( 1999 ), p. 3338 (discussing the position under US trademark law); Morris ( 2012 ), pp. 60–61 (discussing the position under EU trademark law).

Leaffer ( 2006 ), p. 128 (for the US perspective); Dutfield and Suthersanen ( 2020 ), p. 215 (for the EU perspective).

Dornis ( 2017 ), p. 354.

Batty ( 2022 ), p. 162.

Drawing inspiration from copyright statutes, we provide the following generic definition for a TPM: “A technology protection measure is a device or product, or a component incorporated into a process, that is designed in the ordinary course of its operation, to prevent or inhibit the infringement of trademark rights”.

Allal-Chérif O, Simón-Moya V, Ballester ACC (2021) Intelligent purchasing: how artificial intelligence can redefine the purchasing function. J Bus Res 124:69–76

Article   Google Scholar  

Andrade RM (1993) The parallel importation of unauthorized genuine goods: analysis and observations of the gray market. Univ Pennsyl J Int Bus Law 14:409–436

Google Scholar  

Azzopardi DA (2019) Disarray among the circuits: when are consumer surveys persuasive? Iowa Law Rev 104:829–854

Bakpayev M et al (2022) Programmatic creative: AI can think but it cannot feel. Austral Mark J 30:90–95

Bently L et al (2018) Intellectual property law. 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Batty R (2022) Trade mark infringement and artificial intelligence. New Zealand Bus Law Quart 26:137–162

Binns J (2019) Entrupy technology looks to curb luxury counterfeits at the customs level. Sourcing Journal. https://sourcingjournal.com/topics/technology/entrupy-louis-vuitton-gucci-prada-luxury-authentication-counterfeiting-artificial-intelligence-155210/ . Accessed 22 June 2022

Bouchoux DE (2018) Intellectual property law: the law of trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets, 5th edn. Cengage Learning, Clifton Park

Bowden D, Chen J (2017) Canadian trademark law and “use” in the computer and internet age. Can Intellect Prop Rev 33:49–61

Calo R (2018) Artificial intelligence policy: a primer and roadmap. UC Davis Law Rev 51:399–435

Ćapeta T (2017) Of judges and robots. In: Arabadjiev A et al (eds) Challenges of law in life reality. Pravna fakulteta, Ljubljana, pp 129–142

Capisizu L-A (2018) Legal perspectives on the internet of things. Conferinta Internationala de Drept, Studii Europene si Relatii Internationale, pp 523–532

Castonguay J, Smith SS (2020) Digital assets and blockchain: hackable, fraudulent, or just misunderstood? Acc Perspect 19:363–387

Chesterman S (2021) We, the robots? regulating artificial intelligence and the limits of the law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Clocksin WF (2003) Artificial intelligence and the future. Philos Trans 361:1721–1748

Curtis L, Platts R (2017) AI is coming and it will change trade mark law. Manag Intellect Prop 271:9–14

Curtis L, Platts R (2019) Alexa, ‘what’s the impact of AI on trademark law?’ Manag Intellect Prop 281:43–47

Denicola RC (1996) Some thoughts on the dynamics of federal trademark legislation and the Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Law Contemp Probl 59:75–92

Diamond SA (1983) The historical development of trademarks. Trademark Report 73:222–247

Dinwoodie GB (2017) Territorial overlaps in trademark law: the evolving European model. Notre Dame Law Rev 92:1669–1743

Dogan SL, Lemley MA (2004) Trademarks and consumer search costs on the internet. Houston Law Rev 41:777–838

Dogan SL, Lemley MA (2007) Grounding trademark law through trademark use. Iowa Law Rev 92:1669–1701

Dornis TW (2017) Trademark and unfair competition conflicts: historical-comparative, doctrinal, and economic perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Dreyfuss RC (1990) Expressive genericity: trademarks as language in the Pepsi generation. Notre Dame Law Rev 65:397–424

Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2020) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenhan

Economides NS (1988) The economics of trademarks. Trademark Report 78:523–539

Fernandez-Mora A (2021) Trade mark functions in business practice: mapping the law through the search for economic content. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 52:1370–1404

Gangjee DS (2013) Property in brands. In: Howe H, Griffiths J (eds) Concepts of property in intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–59

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gangjee DS (2022) A quotidian revolution: artificial intelligence and trade mark law. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4081317 . Accessed 29 Sep 2022

Glennie ERH (1999) The use of trademark law to prevent the parallel importation of goods. Auckl Univ Law Rev 8:1091–1118

Grynberg M (2019) Al and the “death of trademark.” Ky Law J 108:199–238

Haller S, Karnouskos S, Schroth C (2008) The internet of things in an enterprise context. In: Domingue J, Fensel F, Traverso P (eds) Future internet—FIS 2008. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 14–28

Hannak EW III (1974) The quality assurance function of trademarks. Fordham Law Rev 43:363–378

Hugendubel J (2021) Blockchain technology and intellectual property—a basic introduction. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3917801 . Accessed 29 June 2022

Iddenden G (2021) Alibaba’s AI platform recognises counterfeit goods faster than you can blink. Charged. https://www.chargedretail.co.uk/2021/05/20/alibabas-ai-platform-recognises-counterfeit-goods-faster-than-you-can-blink/ . Accessed 23 June 2022

Keller KL, Swaminathan V (2020) Strategic brand management: building measuring, and managing brand equity. Pearson, Harlow

Kilejian M, Dahlstrom S (2016) Trademark infringement claims in keyword advertising. Franch Law J 36:123–134

Klaus P, Zaichkowsky J (2020) AI voice bots: a services marketing research agenda. J Serv Mark 34:389–398

Koonce L (2016) The wild, distributed world: get ready for radical infrastructure changes, from blockchains to the interplanetary file system to the internet of things. Intellect Prop & Technol Law J 28:3–5

Kulseth MC (2012) Twenty-first century trademarks: how quirky quick response codes (quircs) will challenge the Lanham Act and the USPTO. Cybaris Intellect Prop Law Rev 3:31–55

Kur A (2014) Trademarks function, don't they? CJEU jurisprudence and unfair competition principles. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No 14-05. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2401536 . Accessed 1 July 2022

Landes WM, Posner RA (2003) The economic structure of intellectual property law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Laustsen RD (2020) The average consumer in confusion-based disputes in European trademark law and similar fictions. Springer, Cham

Leaffer M (2006) Sixty years of the Lanham Act: the decline and demise of the monopoly phobia. In: Hansen H (ed) US intellectual property law and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 85–133

Lim YFH (2018) Autonomous vehicles and the law: technology, algorithms and ethics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Llewelyn D, Reddy PT (2020) Metatags ‘using’ third party trade marks on the internet. In: Aplin T (ed) Research handbook on intellectual property and digital technologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 411–425

Marvin R (2017) Blockchain: the invisible technology that's changing the world. PC Magazine. https://www.pcmag.com/news/blockchain-the-invisible-technology-thats-changing-the-world . Accessed 29 June 2022

McCarthy AM (1999) The post-sale confusion doctrine: why the general public should be included in the likelihood of confusion inquiry. Fordham Law Rev 67:3337–3369

McCarthy C (2005) Metatags and the sale of keywords in search engine advertising: confusing consumer confusion with choice. Intellect Prop Law Bull 9:137–158

Mertens E (2018) Technology alters the anti-counterfeiting landscaping. Manag Intellect Prop 275:35–38

Moerland A, Freitas C (2021) Artificial intelligence and trademark assessment. In: Lee J-A, Hilty RM, Liu K-C (eds) Artificial intelligence and intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 266–291

Morris PS (2012) Guess what Gucci? Post-sale confusion exists in Europe. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev 47:1–61

Mostert F (2017) Study on approaches to online trademark infringements. WIPO/ACE/12/9 REV.2. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/enforcement/en/wipoace12/wipoace129rev2.pdf . Accessed 29 June 2022

Nasser MA (2008) Re-examining the functions of trademark law. Chicago-Kent J Intellect Prop 8:99–110

Nemoto A (2021) Used-goods firm says AI system 99% effective in detecting fakes. Asahi Shibun. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14455300 . Accessed 23 June 2022

Ng-Loy WK (2014) Law of intellectual property of Singapore. Sweet & Maxwell, Singapore

Ofcom (2019) Use of AI in online content moderation. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/internet-and-on-demand-research/online-content-moderation . Accessed 22 June 2022

Paez M, La Marca M (2016) The internet of things: emerging legal issues for businesses. North Ky Law Rev 43:29–70

Paster BG (1967) Trademarks—their early history. Trademark Report 59:551–572

Paylago SU (2000) Search engine manipulation: creative use of metatags or trademark infringement. IDEA J Law Technol 40:451–472

Pech S (2020) Copyright unchained: how blockchain technology can change the administration and distribution of copyright protected works. Northwest J Technol Intellect Prop 18:1–50

Pezoulas VC, Exarchos TP, Fotiadis DI (2020) Medical data sharing, harmonization and analytics. Academic Press, London

Picard RW (2008) Toward machines with emotional intelligence. In: Matthews G, Zeidner M, Roberts RD (eds) The science of emotional intelligence: knowns and unknowns. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 396–416

Posner RJ (2000) Manipulative metatagging, search engine baiting, and initial interest confusion. Columb J Law Soc Problems 33:439–506

Psaroudakis G (2012) In search of the trade mark functions: keyword advertising in European law. EIPR 34:33–39

Roberts S (2016) You choc to be kidding! This is why American chocolate tastes so revolting. The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2248773/this-is-why-american-chocolate-tastes-so-revolting/ . Accessed 3 July 2022

Rose A (2020) Blockchain: transforming the registration of IP rights and strengthening the protection of unregistered ip rights. WIPO Magazine. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine_digital/en/2020/article_0002.html . Accessed 11 Sep 2022

Ruston G (1955) On the origin of trademarks. Trademark Report 45:127–144

Sales P (2021) Algorithms, artificial intelligence, and the law. Judicature 105:22–35

Schechter FI (1927) The rational basis for trademark protection. Harv Law Rev 40:813–833

Schmidt-Pfitzner JH (2009) Article 15—protectable subject matter. In: Stoll P-T, Busche J, Arend K (eds) WTO—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, pp 306–315

Selvapandian D, Nirmala Mary RU, Karthikeyan C (2020) Artificial intelligence in online shopping using natural language processing (NLP). J Crit Rev 7:869–872

Senftleben M (2013) Adapting EU trademark law to new technologies: back to basics? In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property: achievements and new perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 137–176

Sloane PS, Russell CA, Sauerborn CM (2020) Trademark vigilance in the twenty-first century: an update. Fordham Intellect Prop Media Entertain Law J 30:1197–1258

Smith N (2019) Protecting consumers in the age of the internet of things. St. John’s Law Rev 93:851–882

Sourdin T (2018) Judge v. robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSW Law J 41:1114–1133

Thornton E (2014) The use of trademarks as metatags in Europe: expanded protections from the European Court of Justice. Wake Forest J Bus Intell Prop Law 14:489–509

Turkle S (2005) The second self: computers and the human spirit. MIT Press, Cambridge

Vítová B (2018) Quality differences in consumer products in the EU legislation. PE 608.840. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/608840/IPOL_STU(2018)608840_EN.pdf . Accessed 4 July 2022

Warner DR Jr (1992) A neural network-based law machine: initial steps. Rutgers Comput Technol Law J 18:51–64

Widmaier U (2004) Use, liability, and the structure of trademark law. Hofstra Law Rev 33:603–709

WIPO (2020) Revised issues paper on intellectual property and artificial intelligence. WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1 REV. https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=499504 . Accessed 11 Sep 2022

Yim J (2022) Four ways metaverse tech will (finally) change the retail experience. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/06/23/four-ways-metaverse-tech-will-finally-change-the-retail-experience/?sh=53e143645732 . Accessed 29 June 2022

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dean, Te Piringa Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Associate Professor and Deputy Head, Division of Business Law, College of Business, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Althaf Marsoof

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alpana Roy .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Roy, A., Marsoof, A. Removing the Human from Trademark Law. IIC (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01466-4

Download citation

Accepted : 20 March 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01466-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• AI and automation
• Evolving trademark functions
• Machine-readable formats
• Trademark use
• Machine confusion
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Take action

• Report an antitrust violation
• File adjudicative documents
• Find banned debt collectors
• View competition guidance
• Competition Matters Blog

New HSR thresholds and filing fees for 2024

View all Competition Matters Blog posts

We work to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

View Policy

Search or browse the Legal Library

Find legal resources and guidance to understand your business responsibilities and comply with the law.

Browse legal resources

• Find policy statements
• Submit a public comment

Vision and Priorities

Memo from Chair Lina M. Khan to commission staff and commissioners regarding the vision and priorities for the FTC.

Technology Blog

Data and models: a quote book from the tech summit on ai.

View all Technology Blog posts

Advice and Guidance

Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business.

• Report fraud
• Report identity theft
• Register for Do Not Call
• Sign up for consumer alerts
• Get Business Blog updates
• Get your free credit report
• Find refund cases
• Order bulk publications
• Consumer Advice
• Shopping and Donating
• Credit, Loans, and Debt
• Jobs and Making Money
• Unwanted Calls, Emails, and Texts
• Identity Theft and Online Security
• Business Guidance
• Advertising and Marketing
• Credit and Finance
• Privacy and Security
• By Industry
• For Small Businesses
• Browse Business Guidance Resources
• Business Blog

Servicemembers: Your tool for financial readiness

Visit militaryconsumer.gov

Get consumer protection basics, plain and simple

Visit consumer.gov

Learn how the FTC protects free enterprise and consumers

Visit Competition Counts

Looking for competition guidance?

• Competition Guidance

News and Events

Latest news, ftc sends refunds to ring customers stemming from 2023 settlement over charges the company failed to block employees and hackers from accessing consumer videos.

View News and Events

Upcoming Event

Informal hearing on proposed trade regulation rule on unfair or deceptive fees – april 24, 2024.

View more Events

Sign up for the latest news

Follow us on social media

-->   -->   -->   -->   -->  

Playing it Safe: Explore the FTC's Top Video Game Cases

Learn about the FTC's notable video game cases and what our agency is doing to keep the public safe.

Latest Data Visualization

FTC Refunds to Consumers

Explore refund statistics including where refunds were sent and the dollar amounts refunded with this visualization.

About the FTC

Our mission is protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Learn more about the FTC

Meet the Chair

Lina M. Khan was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission on June 15, 2021.

Chair Lina M. Khan

Looking for legal documents or records? Search the Legal Library instead.

• Report Fraud
• Get Consumer Alerts
• Search the Legal Library
• Submit Public Comments
• Cases and Proceedings
• Premerger Notification Program
• Merger Review
• Anticompetitive Practices
• Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents
• Warning Letters
• Consumer Sentinel Network
• Criminal Liaison Unit
• FTC Refund Programs
• Notices of Penalty Offenses
• Advocacy and Research
• Advisory Opinions
• Cooperation Agreements
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comments
• Policy Statements
• International
• Office of Technology Blog
• Military Consumer
• Consumer.gov
• Bulk Publications
• Data and Visualizations
• Stay Connected
• Commissioners and Staff
• Bureaus and Offices
• Budget and Strategy
• Office of Inspector General
• Careers at the FTC

FTC Announces Special Open Commission Meeting on Rule to Ban Noncompetes

• Competition
• Office of Policy Planning
• Bureau of Competition

Today, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina M. Khan announced that a special Open Commission Meeting will be held virtually on Tuesday, April 23, 2024, at 2pm ET. 

The following item will be on the agenda: 

Business Before the Commission:

Rule to Ban Noncompetes Clauses:

The Commission will vote on whether to issue a proposed final rule that would prevent most employers from enforcing noncompetes against workers. The proposed final rule being considered would generally prevent most employers from using noncompete clauses. As the  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explained, noncompetes are a widespread and often exploitative practice that suppresses wages, hampers innovation, and blocks entrepreneurs from starting new businesses. The proposed final rule the Commission will consider stems from the notice of proposed rulemaking the  FTC issued in January 2023, which was subject to a 90-day public comment period. 

At the start of the meeting, the Commission will vote on whether to authorize public disclosure of the proposed final rule that is under consideration. Then, Chair Khan will offer brief remarks. Next, if the Commission votes to authorize public disclosure of the final rule under consideration, the Office of Policy Planning will give a staff presentation on the final noncompete rule under consideration. Finally, the Commission will vote on whether to issue the final rule. 

After announcing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FTC received more than 26,000 comments from members of the public. Given the extremely high volume of public input already received and given that the public comment period on the proposed rule closed in April 2023, the Commission will not be taking further comments from the public during the April 23 Open Commission Meeting. The public, however, can watch the meeting via webcast, which will be available on the day of the event shortly before the meeting starts at FTC.gov. The event will be recorded, and the webcast will be available on the Commission’s website after the meeting.  

The Federal Trade Commission develops policy initiatives on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Follow the  FTC on social media , read  consumer alerts  and the  business blog , and  sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts .

Press Release Reference

Contact information, media contact.

Victoria Graham Office of Public Affairs 415-848-5121

Call for Student Artists to Participate in Wyoming Junior Duck Stamp Contest

The National Elk Refuge will be hosting the 2024 Wyoming Junior Duck Stamp Competition in March. This art competition is open to all students in grades K-12 enrolled in Wyoming public, private, tribal, and homeschools. To enter your work in the 2024 competition, draw or paint a native North American waterfowl (full list of eligible species can be found on the website below) on a 9”x12” sheet of paper and mail it to the National Elk Refuge, 675 E. Broadway, PO Box 510, Jackson WY 83001 by March 15, 2024.

Participation packets will be available for pick up from the National Elk Refuge and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center (532 N. Cache St.) mid-January thru early March. Participation packets will include instructions, entry form, and 9x12 paper, 2 pieces of 9x12 tagboard, and 1 sheet of 9x12 watercolor paper. Need art supplies or reference materials to participate? Email  [email protected] to reserve the Wyoming Junior Duck Traveling Trunk for up to one week. The Traveling Trunk requires pick up and drop off in Jackson, WY at the National Elk Refuge’s Headquarters Office at 675 East Broadway, Jackson, WY.

Artwork will be judged by local wildlife artists and outdoor professionals in early April. 36 winners and 64 honorable mentions will be awarded across 4 age groups, all of whom will receive prizes. New this year, the Wyoming Junior Duck Stamp Program will have two “Best of Jackson Hole” winners for Teton County, WY (1 for K-6 grade & 1 for 7-12 grade) in addition to the state best-of-show winner.

The best-of-show winner in Wyoming will go on to compete in the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Competition. The winning design is printed on the next year’s Junior Duck Stamp and sold for $5 each - the proceeds of which go towards wetland conservation and environmental education.

The Federal Duck Stamp Program was introduced in 1934 in response to loss of wetlands and declines in waterfowl populations in North America. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act required that all waterfowl hunters purchase a conservation stamp along with their hunting license in order to raise funds for waterfowl and wetland conservation. By 2000, all 50 states, the District of Colombia, and all U.S. Territories participated in the Federal Junior Duck Stamp competition. Today, the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Program is not limited to waterfowl hunting enthusiasts; the Program is also a great way to practice wildlife watching, create art, and learn about conservation.

To participate in the Wyoming Junior Duck Stamp Competition, please review the competition rules, which can be found at  Junior Duck Stamp Contest Information and submit entries to the National Elk Refuge postmarked by March 15 th , 2024. For more information, please contact the Wyoming Junior Duck Stamp Coordinator, Raena Parsons, at [email protected] .

Media Contacts

Latest press releases.

You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website

You are being directed to

We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.