Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
In this essay, I link developments in international relations pertaining to intellectual property law (“international IP relations”) with developments in U.S. domestic law and jurisprudence, particularly in the arena of tort and unfair competition law. In drawing these connections, I seek to inhabit the Zeitgeist of U.S. legal scholarship during the Interwar Period (1919–1939), focusing on a three-volume work published in 1937 to celebrate a “Century of Progress” at the 100th anniversary of New York University Law School. Echoing the work of Steven Wilf, among others, I view the Interwar years as a period in which Progressive visions for social reform came to ambivalent fruition, linking national protections for “industrial” property more explicitly to international law in the process. A broader legal framework for “fair competition” was grafted into the American Law Institute’s project for “restating” the U.S. common law of torts (the First Restatement), and foundations were laid for a major revision of federal trademark law (the Lanham Act), motivated partly by the goal of aligning U.S. domestic law more closely with international treaty obligations. Focusing on a cluster of scholars, lawyers, and journalists at the center of these developments, I seek to recapture the constellation of worldviews implicit in the developments they both described and sought to advance. The lawyers and legal scholars at the center of this drama did not always share values. But, consistent with the jurisprudential ethos of legal realism, they found common ground in a social-democratic reconceptualization of state power, and in the reliance on newly developing social sciences to guide legal reforms. Their efforts were reinforced by a new, post-Christian style of moral rhetoric, lending symbolic goodness to the systematic pursuit of national power, to be fueled by consumer spending.