An Analysis of Beverage Consumption in the United States Using the National Health and Examination Survey 2007-2017

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) are liquids sweetened with various forms of added sugar. They are the leading source of calories and added sugar in the American diet (Drewnowski & Rehm, 2014; National Cancer Institute, 2016; Powell, Chriqui, Khan, Wada, & Chaloupka, 2013). The health and nutrition literature has increasingly identified added sugars and SSBs as a key potential contributor to a host of public health issues including obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease (Johnson et al., 2009; Malik, Popkin, Bray, Despres, & Hu, 2010; Vartanian, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2007). Concern about these public health crises has recently animated regional and local campaigns to attempt to limit consumption of these items through taxes and other policies. These policy proposals have raised demand for information and research about the drivers and effects SSB and beverage consumption in general. This study documents the major systems that have been used to categorize different types of SSBs and proposes a new beverage categorization typology – the Synthesized Beverage Categorization System – that cross references information from the What We Eat In America Food Categories and the Food Patterns Equivalents Database to offer the most precise SSB typology available today. The remaining sections use reported dietary intake data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to analyze consumption patterns of sugary beverage subtypes in a number of ways. First this study lays the groundwork for future studies of beverage consumption by examining consumption patterns of major SSB subtypes for adults and children by a number of variables commonly used in dietary intake analysis. Second, this article provides an analysis of sociodemographic trends in the consumption of several major sugary-beverage subtypes by age group, race and gender. Finally, consumption patterns of conventional and “non-traditional” SSBs are provided for the last 4 NHANES data collection cycles to analyze recent trends in reported intake of calories and added sugars from sugary beverages

Trademarks as Sources of Market Power: Drugs, Beers and Product Differentiation

This Article defines the notion of market power and how in conjunction with trademark rights give rise to elements that are deemed anticompetitive in a free market society. This Article uses legal arguments to consider how important developments in antitrust economics, particularly product differentiation and monopolistic competition, have contributed to the notion that trademarks are a source of market power. The Article uses a number of cases in the field of trademarks to underscore the key points that trademarks are a source of market power. These case developments contribute to the monopolistic tendencies of trademarks and describe how such tendencies are associated with the theory on market power and product differentiation. Empirically, the Article examines beer products from a single large corporation and the various trademarks/brands to determine whether such brands are a source of market power, effectively giving that manufacturer a monopoly on the beer market. A discussion of product hopping in pharmaceuticals is used to supplement the theories and evidence from the beer market. The Article also develops a theory of branded monopoly and suggests that, as a result of single ownership of trademarks and brands that are abundant from a single owner trademark’s market power, questions relating to antitrust foreclosure are often raised, despite the fact that market power is not anticompetitive per se. If it is recognized that trademarks are a source of market power, and hence, a core concern for antitrust law and policy, then the legal foundations of the current trademark system would need a radical redesign. If, on the other hand, it is recognized that trademarks are a source of market power, but do not conflict with antitrust law, and antitrust enforcers are to ignore conducts such as market foreclosure and other barriers to entry as a result of excessive trademarks and brands, then both antitrust and trademark law can continue to co-exist in the current system.

Intellectual Property for Breakfast: Market Power and Informative Symbols in the Marketplace

This Article continues to examine an important question: are trademarks a source of market power, or, put differently, when are trademarks an antitrust problem? This fundamental question is a cause of division among antitrust and intellectual property law scholars. However, by raising the question and presenting some scenarios that can provide answers, my hope is that contemporary antitrust and intellectual property scholars can explore some of its implications. As part of my own quest to address this question, I explore the proposition that creative deception and the wealth-generating capacity of trademarks are unorthodox elements that actually contribute to allegations of monopolistic behavior through product differentiation. This article is organized in three major sections in addition to introductory and concluding observations. In Part Two, I discuss the concept of creative deception and argue that through trademarking activities creative deception helps to sustain market power. In Part Three, I offer a comparative analysis of market power in different intellectual property regimes such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks. However, I examine a few case studies where allegedly market power emerged as a result of creative deception and trademarking activities. I examine, in particular, the Cereal complaints that the FTC addressed in the 1970s. Part Four of the Article offers a more systematic discussion on creative deception through three market dynamics: (a) trademarks as promoting competition, (b) trademarks as wealth generating tools, and (c) trademarks in product differentiation. These dynamics, I argue, bring us closer to view creative deception and trademarking activities as evidence that requires greater scrutiny under antitrust law

Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights Ltd and Others v Marshall-Burnett Case (Privy Council UK)

Peer reviewe

Intellectual Property for Breakfast: Market Power and Informative Symbols in the Marketplace

This Article continues to examine an important question: are trademarks a source of market power, or, put differently, when are trademarks an antitrust problem? This fundamental question is a cause of division among antitrust and intellectual property law scholars. However, by raising the question and presenting some scenarios that can provide answers, my hope is that contemporary antitrust and intellectual property scholars can explore some of its implications. As part of my own quest to address this question, I explore the proposition that creative deception and the wealth-generating capacity of trademarks are unorthodox elements that actually contribute to allegations of monopolistic behavior through product differentiation. This article is organized in three major sections in addition to introductory and concluding observations. In Part Two, I discuss the concept of creative deception and argue that through trademarking activities creative deception helps to sustain market power. In Part Three, I offer a comparative analysis of market power in different intellectual property regimes such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks. However, I examine a few case studies where allegedly market power emerged as a result of creative deception and trademarking activities. I examine, in particular, the Cereal complaints that the FTC addressed in the 1970s. Part Four of the Article offers a more systematic discussion on creative deception through three market dynamics: (a) trademarks as promoting competition, (b) trademarks as wealth generating tools, and (c) trademarks in product differentiation. These dynamics, I argue, bring us closer to view creative deception and trademarking activities as evidence that requires greater scrutiny under antitrust law