Those of us who contribute to the relentlessly expanding literature on the Constitution imagine that our exhaustive research and cogent analysis will enliven scholarly debates, advance the cause of higher education, and, perhaps, help justify the existence of hundreds of law journals. At the same time, we often harbor ambitions that our work will extend its reach beyond the narrow confines of academia, perhaps even influencing the Supreme Court's thinking when the next case arises under whatever constitutional article or amendment we have so brilliantly illuminated. The visible signs of our election to this heady realm may be found in a brief footnote reference in a Supreme Court opinion or even mirabile dictu a mention in the text itself along with glorious words like “seminal” or “landmark.” Such recognition is rare indeed, although it does occur from time to time, and in 2003, Frank Schechter posthumously entered this scholarly promised land when Justice Stevens called upon his “seminal discussion” of trademark law in a 1927 Harvard Law Review article. Schechter's graduate studies at Columbia Law School, combined with his practical experience as trademark counsel for the BVD Company (where preparing briefs has a long history), helped the modern Court resolve a case involving trademarks used for “moderately priced, high quality, attractively designed lingerie sold in a store setting designed to look like a wom[a]n's bedroom,” namely, Moseley v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, Inc.