holding the Trademark Counterfeiting Statute unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
How later courts described this case
- holding the Trademark Counterfeiting Statute unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
- providing that an appellate court reviews pure questions of law under a de novo standard
- generally speaking, constitutional rights cannot be asserted vicariously
- same as to different statutes
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
Dissenting.
Whilst I join Madame Justice Greenspan’s dissent concluding Pennsylvania’s Trademark Counterfeiting Statute, 18 Pa. C.S. § 4119, is not so vague and overbroad as to be deemed unconstitutional, I write separately because of references contrasting this statute to our recent holding in Malt Beverages Distributors Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 974 A.2d 1144 (Pa.2009). In her dissent, Madame Justice Greenspan states this Court properly found the statute at issue in Malt Beverages to be ambiguous, yet now refuses to find ambiguity in the current statute, which I find to contain even more tenuous language. Dissenting Op., at 617-18, 981 A.2d at 193-94. I dissented in Malt Beverages, believing the statute there was not ambiguous. Therefore, I cannot agree with statements suggesting this Court properly found statutory ambiguity in Malt Beverages. In all other aspects, I join Madame Justice Greenspan’s dissent.