MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263542638

L'Ego My Trade-Mark! Mega Blocks to Protection: Lego and the Functionality Doctrine Revisited

2010· article· en· W2263542638 on OpenAlex
Emir Crowne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineTrademarkBrickJurisprudenceLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this paper is to test and stretch the bounds of the doctrine specifically as it applies to the ubiquitous Lego brick (the upper surface of the Lego brick in particular). More to the point, I aim to show that the Canadian Courts have misapplied the functionality doctrine in Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. in denying common law trademark rights to the upper surface of the Lego brick. Indeed, this paper has had a somewhat convoluted and ambitious history, and I have been forced to re-consider that view several times during its formulation. Nonetheless, I will still attempt to show that the Courts have, respectfully, mis-applied the law as it applies to the functionality of the Lego indicia in particular. I will focus on the Canadian jurisprudence on the matter and critically examine the bases for the doctrine as they apply to that indicia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it