Trademark Surveys: Development of Computer-Based Survey Methods, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 91 (2004)

Courts have continually utilized surveys to show evidence of secondary meaning, genericness, dilution, and functionality in trademark litigation. In conducting a trademark survey, an expert must consider various factors that may affect the admissibility of the survey in court, including assuring the correct universe of respondents are questioned, implementing controls, and verifying the results. In light of these considerations, as well as the ever-changing environment of consumer shopping, the manner and mode of survey that a court accepts as appropriate must adapt to these conditions. The use and acceptance of online and computer-based surveys is not currently well received by the courts, but this should change due to the many advantages that on-line surveys offer to trademark litigants. These advantages, including more efficient, accurate and trustworthy results that far outweigh any perceived disadvantages a court may put forth in finding such surveys inadmissible

Oxytocin Receptor Genetic Variation Promotes Human Trust Behavior

Given that human trust behavior is heritable and intranasal administration of oxytocin enhances trust, the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene is an excellent candidate to investigate genetic contributions to individual variations in trust behavior. Although a single-nucleotide polymorphism involving an adenine (A)/guanine (G) transition (rs53576) has been associated with socio-emotional phenotypes, its link to trust behavior is unclear. We combined genotyping of healthy male students (n = 108) with the administration of a trust game experiment. Our results show that a common occurring genetic variation (rs53576) in the OXTR gene is reliably associated with trust behavior rather than a general increase in trustworthy or risk behaviors. Individuals homozygous for the G allele (GG) showed higher trust behavior than individuals with A allele carriers (AA/AG). Although the molecular functionality of this polymorphism is still unknown, future research should clarify how the OXTR gene interacts with other genes and the environment in promoting socio-emotional behaviors

Comparison of multiple vaccine vectors in a single heterologous prime-boost trial

The prevention of infectious disease via prophylactic immunization is a mainstay of global public health efforts. Vaccine design would be facilitated by a better understanding of the type and durability of immune responses generated by different vaccine vectors. We report here the results of a comparative immunogenicity trial of six different vaccine vectors expressing the same insert antigen, cowpox virus B5 (CPXV-B5). Of those vectors tested, recombinant adenovirus (rAd5) was the most immunogenic, inducing the highest titer anti-B5 antibodies and conferring protection from sublethal vaccinia virus challenge in mice after a single immunization. We tested select heterologous prime-boost combinations and identified recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV) and recombinant Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus replicons (VRP) as the most synergistic regimen. Comparative data such as those presented here are critical to efforts to generate protective vaccines for emerging infectious diseases as well as for biothreat agents

2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales.

Correction to: 2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales. Archives of Virology (2021) 166:3567–3579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-021-05266-wIn March 2021, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. The phylum was expanded by four families (Aliusviridae, Crepuscuviridae, Myriaviridae, and Natareviridae), three subfamilies (Alpharhabdovirinae, Betarhabdovirinae, and Gammarhabdovirinae), 42 genera, and 200 species. Thirty-nine species were renamed and/or moved and seven species were abolished. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV.This work was supported in part through Laulima Government Solutions, LLC prime contract with the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. J.H.K. performed this work as an employee of Tunnell Government Services (TGS), a subcontractor of Laulima Government Solutions, LLC under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. This work was also supported in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), under Contract No. 75N91019D00024, Task Order No. 75N91019F00130 to I.C., who was supported by the Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Lab for Cancer Research. This work was also funded in part by Contract No. HSHQDC-15-C-00064 awarded by DHS S&T for the management and operation of The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, a federally funded research and development center operated by the Battelle National Biodefense Institute (V.W.); and NIH contract HHSN272201000040I/HHSN27200004/D04 and grant R24AI120942 (N.V., R.B.T.). S.S. acknowledges partial support from the Special Research Initiative of Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES), Mississippi State University, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, Hatch Project 1021494. Part of this work was supported by the Francis Crick Institute which receives its core funding from Cancer Research UK (FC001030), the UK Medical Research Council (FC001030), and the Wellcome Trust (FC001030).S

2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales.

In March 2021, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. The phylum was expanded by four families (Aliusviridae, Crepuscuviridae, Myriaviridae, and Natareviridae), three subfamilies (Alpharhabdovirinae, Betarhabdovirinae, and Gammarhabdovirinae), 42 genera, and 200 species. Thirty-nine species were renamed and/or moved and seven species were abolished. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV

Annual (2023) taxonomic update of RNA-directed RNA polymerase-encoding negative-sense RNA viruses (realm Riboviria: kingdom Orthornavirae: phylum Negarnaviricota)

55 Pág.In April 2023, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. The phylum was expanded by one new family, 14 new genera, and 140 new species. Two genera and 538 species were renamed. One species was moved, and four were abolished. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV.This work was supported in part through the Laulima Government Solutions, LLC, prime contract with the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infec tious Diseases (NIAID) under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. J.H.K. performed this work as an employee of Tunnell Government Services (TGS), a subcontractor of Laulima Government Solutions, LLC, under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. U.J.B. was supported by the Division of Intramural Resarch, NIAID. This work was also funded in part by Contract No. HSHQDC15-C-00064 awarded by DHS S and T for the management and operation of The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Centre, a federally funded research and development centre operated by the Battelle National Biodefense Institute (V.W.); and NIH contract HHSN272201000040I/HHSN27200004/D04 and grant R24AI120942 (N.V., R.B.T.). S.S. acknowl edges support from the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES), USDA-ARS project 58-6066-9-033 and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hatch Project, under Accession Number 1021494. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of the Army, the U.S. Department of Defence, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S and T), or of the institutions and companies affiliated with the authors. In no event shall any of these entities have any responsibility or liability for any use, misuse, inability to use, or reliance upon the information contained herein. The U.S. departments do not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S.Government retains a non-exclusive, paid up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.Peer reviewe

Face Recognition Technology: The Potential Orwellian Implications and Constitutionality of Current Uses Under the Fourth Amendment, 20 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 321 (2002)

Did you smile at the 2001 Super Bowl at Tampa\u27s Raymond James Stadium? Hope you did because the facial recognition cameras certainly got your smile, applause, disappointment and kisses in that great American sports night. If you missed your 15-second of fame, try it again at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. With the use of facial recognition technology at the 2001 Super Bowl and Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, the author seeks to explore the use of this facial recognition technology. He further discusses the constitutionality of it under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so, he analyzes how facial recognition technology constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus offends one\u27s reasonable expectation of privacy. In addition, the aftermath of the tragic attack on September 11th, 2001 inevitably changed public and governments\u27 perspective of such technology. Will a Orwellian state in 1984 foreshadow the future of America? The author believes only through the continued evaluation and criticism of this technology will there be assurances of protection of the Fourth Amendment