DOCSLIB.ORG

Beebe – Trademark Law: an Open-Source Casebook – Part II II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beebe – Trademark Law: an Open-Source Casebook – Part II II Beebe – Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook – Part II II. Trademark Infringement ................................................................................................................................ 3 A. The Actionable Use Requirement ...................................................................................................... 4 1. Defendant’s “Use in Commerce” .............................................................................................. 5 Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc....................................................................................... 6 2. Defendant’s Use “in Connection with the Sale…of any Goods or Services” ....... 14 Radiance Foundation, Inc. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People .................................................................................................................. 15 B. Confusion-Based Infringement ........................................................................................................ 21 1. The History of the Confusion-Based Cause of Action for Trademark Infringement ................................................................................................................................. 21 a. The Early-Twentieth Century Approach to the Likelihood of Consumer Confusion ............................................................................................................................. 21 Borden Ice Cream Co. v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co. ..................................... 21 b. The Development of the Modern Multifactor Test ............................................ 25 Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp. .......................................................... 26 2. Contemporary Applications of the Multifactor Test for the Likelihood of Confusion ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab ............................................................................... 33 3. Further Examples of the Application of the Multifactor Test for the Likelihood of Confusion Test ........................................................................................................................ 44 4. Survey Evidence and the Likelihood of Confusion ....................................................... 48 Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. .................................................................................... 52 5. “Sponsorship or Affiliation” Confusion ............................................................................. 67 Int’l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC .............. 67 Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Smack Apparel Co. .............................................................. 76 6. Initial Interest Confusion ........................................................................................................ 79 Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com ........................................................................ 80 7. Post-Sale Confusion ................................................................................................................... 89 Ferrari S.P.A. v. Roberts ................................................................................................. 90 8. Reverse Confusion ................................................................................................................... 100 Uber Promotions, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. .............................................. 101 9. Reverse Passing Off ................................................................................................................. 113 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. ........................................... 115 10. Lanham Act § 2(d) Confusion ............................................................................................. 125 C. Trademark Dilution ........................................................................................................................... 127 1. The Fame Requirement for Antidilution Protect ....................................................... 132 Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC ........................................................ 133 2. Dilution by Blurring ................................................................................................................ 137 Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Intern., Inc. ............................................................................... 137 Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc. ................................................. 147 1 V5.0/2018-07-18 Beebe – Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook – Part II 3. Dilution by Tarnishment ...................................................................................................... 160 V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley ......................................................................... 160 D. Cybersquatting ..................................................................................................................................... 171 1. The Section 43(d) Prohibition Against Cybersquatting ......................................... 172 Sporty’s Farm L.LC. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc. ................................................ 172 Lamparello v. Falwell ................................................................................................... 181 2. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System ........................................................................................................................................... 190 a. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy .............................................................. 190 Pinterest, Inc. v. Pinerest.com c/o Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Ian Townsend .......................................................................................................................... 196 b. The Uniform Rapid Suspension System .............................................................. 203 Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav .......................................................................................... 204 E. Secondary Liability ............................................................................................................................ 207 Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. ...................................................................................... 207 Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp. ............................................. 222 2 V5.0/2018-07-18 Beebe – Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook – Part II II. Trademark Infringement In this Part, we consider the infringement of trademark rights under certain sections of the Lanham Act: § 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (likelihood of confusion with respect to registered marks) § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (likelihood of confusion with respect to registered or unregistered marks) § 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (likelihood of dilution with respect to registered or unregistered marks) § 43(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (“cybersquatting” of registered or unregistered marks) Note that the test for likelihood of confusion under § 32 is now essentially the same as the test for likelihood of confusion under § 43(a), and courts often cite to case law under one section interchangeably with case law under the other. When owners of registered marks plead likelihood of confusion, they typically do so under both § 32 and § 43(a) in the event that some defect is discovered in their registration. Such plaintiffs may also plead under both sections in order to avail themselves of the slightly broader language of § 43(a), though, again, courts typically treat § 32 and § 43(a) as essentially interchangeable. Courts have set forth the elements of a trademark infringement claim in a variety of ways. For example, with respect to a claim based on a likelihood of confusion under either or both of § 32 and § 43(a), courts have stated: “[T]o succeed in a Lanham Act suit for trademark infringement, a plaintiff has two obstacles to overcome: the plaintiff must prove that its mark is entitled to protection and, even more important, that the defendant’s use of its own mark will likely cause confusion with plaintiff’s mark.” Gruner + Jahr USA Publ’g v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1074 (2d Cir. 1993). “To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, a party must prove: (1) that it has a protectible ownership interest in the mark; and (2) that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.” Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). “To establish trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that it owns a valid mark; (2) that the defendant used the mark ‘in commerce’ and without plaintiff’s authorization; (3) that the defendant used the mark (or an imitation of it) ‘in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising’ of goods or services; and (4) that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to confuse consumers.” Rosetta Stone v Google Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 152 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). “Both infringement and false designation of origin have five elements. To prevail under either cause of action, the trademark
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
    Patents, Trademarks, And Copyrights: A PRIMER PREPARED BY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION . 5 B. DESIGN PATENTS . 14 WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTELLECTUAL WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR OBTAINING A PROPERTY PROTECTION AVAILABLE? . 5 DESIGN PATENT? . 15 2. PATENTS . 6 ARE DESIGN PATENTS OF ANY REAL VALUE? . 16 WHAT RIGHTS DO I OBTAIN WITH A PATENT? . 6 HOW LONG DO MY RIGHTS LAST WITH WHEN SHOULD A PATENT APPLICATION BE FILED? . 6 A DESIGN PATENT? . 16 ARE THERE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PATENTS? . 7 B. DESIGN PATENTS. 16 WHAT IS PATENT MARKING? . 7 HOW DO I TELL IF SOMEONE IS INFRINGING A. UTILITY PATENTS . 8 MY DESIGN PATENT? . 16 WHAT CAN THE SUBJECT OF A UTILITY CAN I PROTECT MY DESIGN OUTSIDE THE U.S.? . 17 PATENT APPLICATION BE? . .. 8 3. TRADEMARKS . 17 ARE COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND METHODS OF WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRADEMARK DOING BUSINESS PATENTABLE? . 8 AND A SERVICE MARK? . 18 WHAT IS THE TERM OF A PATENT? . 9 SHOULD I UNDERTAKE A TRADEMARK SEARCH? . .18 WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR OBTAINING A HOW DO I REGISTER MY TRADEMARK? . .18 UTILITY PATENT? . .9 WHY BOTHER REGISTERING MY TRADEMARK? . 19 I PLAN TO OFFER MY PRODUCT FOR SALE SOON. WHAT IS THE TERM OF A TRADEMARK? . 20 CAN I FILE SOMETHING “QUICKLY” TO HOW DO I GIVE NOTICE OF TRADEMARK RIGHTS? . 21 PRESERVE MY RIGHTS? . 10 WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I THINK MY TRADEMARK HOW DO I TAKE ACTION IF I THINK MY PATENT IS OR TRADE DRESS IS BEING INFRINGED? . .21 BEING INFRINGED? . 11 CAN I OBTAIN INTERNATIONAL ARE PATENT SEARCHES AND CLEARANCE TRADEMARK PROTECTION? .
    [Show full text]
  • Child Pornography in the “Send Nudes” Era 239
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 49 Issue 2 Article 6 2020 Reevaluating Maryland’s Child Pornography Laws in the “Send Nudes” Era Shannon Hayden Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hayden, Shannon (2020) "Reevaluating Maryland’s Child Pornography Laws in the “Send Nudes” Era," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 49 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol49/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REEVALUATING MARYLAND’S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAWS IN THE “SEND NUDES” ERA Shannon Hayden* I. INTRODUCTION In 2018, A24 Films released the film Eighth Grade.1 Critics and audiences alike immediately praised the film for its “painfully real” depiction of what it is like to grow up in the age of social media.2 The film follows protagonist Kayla, a bit of a “quiet outcast,”3 as she navigates her way through the last week of middle school, trying desperately to fit in.4 Kayla’s middle school experience is similar to that of many adolescents; she is socially awkward at school and riddled with anxiety, but at home she comes alive, where she self- produces videos for her YouTube channel.5 Like many of her real life counterparts, Kayla has a crush on the resident cool kid Aiden, a classmate of hers.6 In one memorable scene, Kayla’s middle school is having an active shooter drill.7 During the drill, Kayla hears from * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON OTR WHEEL ENGINEERING, INC., ) BLACKSTONE/OTR, LLC, and F.B.T. )
    Case 2:14-cv-00085-LRS ECF No. 597 filed 10/05/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 OTR WHEEL ENGINEERING, INC., ) BLACKSTONE/OTR, LLC, and F.B.T. ) 9 ENTERPRISES, INC., ) ) 10 Plaintiffs, ) No. CV-14-085-LRS ) 11 v. ) ORDER RE ) POST-TRIAL MOTIONS 12 ) ) 13 WEST WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC., ) and SAMUEL J. WEST, individually and ) 14 his marital community, SSL Holdings, Inc., ) SSL Global, Inc., SSL China LLC, and ) 15 Qingdao STW Tire Co., Ltd., ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) 17 BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion For Judgment As 18 A Matter Of Law On Fraud Counterclaim And Motion For New Trial On 19 Registered And Unregistered Trademark (ECF No. 547), Defendants’ Renewed 20 Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil 21 Procedure 50 (ECF No. 550), Defendants’ Motion To Suspend Or Lift The 22 Preliminary Injunction And For Recovery Of Cash Bond (ECF No. 499), and 23 Plaintiffs’ Motion For Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 521). 24 These motions were heard with telephonic oral argument on September 19, 25 2016. Geana M. Van Dessel, Esq., and Robert J. Carlson, Esq., argued for 26 Plaintiffs (collectively referred to herein as “OTR”). Christine LeBron-Dykeman, 27 Esq., argued for Defendants (collectively referred to herein as “West”). 28 ORDER RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS- 1 Case 2:14-cv-00085-LRS ECF No. 597 filed 10/05/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 31 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Jury trial in this matter commenced on June 20, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Protection For· Non-Traditional Trademarks: Product Packaging and Design
    Emerging Protection for· Non-Traditional Trademarks: Product Packaging and Design Margaret A. Boulware Partner Baker & McKenzie LLP ASPATORE 55 INSIDE THE MINDS Introduction A focus of my practice is counseling clients on creative and cost-effective protection of their valuable intellectual property assets. Distinctive visual feature presentations, such as product design and packaging, are often oyerlooked for federal trademark protection, which lasts as long as the product feature is in use and extends throughout the U.S. Because my clients invest significant resources in new products, I cbunsel them to consider intellectual property protection for non-traditional trademarks as well as copyright and patent protection. I have represented clients in worldwide branding strategy ranging from consumer products in the automotive industry to highly sp·ecialized equipment for oil and gas exploration and production. My firm was founded in 1949 and has more than 3,900 locally qualified lawyers and 7,000 professional staff in sixty-seven offices and thirty-nine cotmtries. Baker & McKenzie is known for advising clients in trademark protection due to the global reach of its intellectual property professionals and represents some of the world's largest trademark portfolio owners. This · depth of knowledge provides my clients with a worldwide view of protection for non-traditional marks. I work with clients on initiatives for the global marketplace to enhance brand recognition and value. Protection for Non-Traditional Trademarks Protection of non-traditional trademarks balances the need for the customer to recognize the source of the product or service against the need for others to effectively compete. "Trademarks are protected from unauthorized use so consumers have reliable source indication and can trust the quality of the goods or services associated with a mark.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slants Decision Understates the Value of Trademark Registration in Promoting Speech - Correctly Decided with a Conclusory Analysis
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE SLANTS DECISION UNDERSTATES THE VALUE OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION IN PROMOTING SPEECH - CORRECTLY DECIDED WITH A CONCLUSORY ANALYSIS DAVID C. BREZINA ABSTRACT The highly anticipated case of Matal v. Tam resulted in the band, The Slants, eventually being able to register their band name as a trademark, with a goal in mind to reclaim Asian stereotypes. Despite this decision, it is not immediately clear how having a registration enhances the registrant’s right to use the mark as a part of free speech, when the Court observes that Tam could call his band The Slants even without registration. This article touches on the Tam case, by analyzing both the positive and negative rights that federal trademark registration yields. By expanding on a variety of examples, this article will explore the focus for a First Amendment evaluation on rights of speech, rather than focus primarily on the prima facie case that comes with having a trademark registration, concluding that the advantages to free speech resulting from registration are substantial. Copyright © 2018 The John Marshall Law School Cite as David C. Brezina, The Slants Decision Understates the Value of Trademark Registration in Promoting Speech - Correctly Decided With a Conclusory Analysis, 17 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 380 (2018). THE SLANTS DECISION UNDERSTATES THE VALUE OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION IN PROMOTING SPEECH - CORRECTLY DECIDED WITH A CONCLUSORY ANALYSIS DAVID C. BREZINA I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 381 II. REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION TO DISPARAGING MARKS ............................................ 382 III. ARE FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS PRIVATE SPEECH SUBJECT TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS? ................................................................................. 383 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distributive Effects of IP Registration
    The Distributive Effects of IP Registration Miriam Marcowitz-Bitton* Emily Michiko Morris** 23 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 306 (2020) ABSTRACT Although the law often seeks to level the playing field, all too often the law has the opposite effect and tilts the playing field in favor of some over others. Intellectual property law is no different. This article focuses in particular on the registration of intellectual property (IP) rights, which has long been a prerequi- site for full protection under patent, trademark, and copyright law. Registering IP rights yields significant advantages, but it also imposes significant costs, which in turn may create distributive effects by hindering some more than oth- ers. Acknowledging IP rights without registration can therefore be a more egal- itarian way of protecting innovation and creativity. Indeed, some forms of IP—specifically copyright and trademark—allow for both registered and unregistered rights. Yet this article is the first to explore the distributive implications of such two-tiered regimes. On the one hand, register- * Associate Professor, Bar-Ilan University Law School, S.J.D University of Michigan Law School. ** Visiting Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson Law. The authors wish to thank Daniel Benoliel, Thomas Cotter, Estelle Derclaye, Rochelle Dreyfuss, John Duffy, Graham Dutfield, Janet Freilich, Deborah Gerhardt, Yotam Kaplan, Jacob Nussim, Ruth Okediji, Dotan Oliar, Julio Raffo, Rebecca Tush- net, Michael Schuster, Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, and Lior Zemer, as well as the partic- ipants at the European Policy for Intellectual Property 14th Annual Conference, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. Spring 2020 THE DISTRIBUTIVE EFFECTS OF IP REGISTRATION 307 ing IP rights helps provide the public with notice of those rights and their (ap- proximate) boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrity in Cyberspace: a Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes
    Celebrity in Cyberspace: A Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes Jacqueline D. Lipton* Abstract When the Oscar-winning actress Julia Roberts fought for control of the <juliaroberts.com> domain name, what was her aim? Did she want to reap economic benefits from the name? Probably not, as she has not used the name since it was transferred to her. Or did she want to prevent others from using it on either an unjust enrichment or a privacy basis? Was she, in fact, protecting a trademark interest in her name? Personal domain name disputes, particularly those in the <name.com> space, implicate unique aspects of an individual’s persona in cyberspace. Nevertheless, most of the legal rules developed for these disputes are based on trademark law. Although a number of individuals have successfully used these rules in practice, the focus on trademark law has led to inconsistent and often arbitrary results. This Article suggests that if personal names merit legal protection in cyberspace, it should be under an appropriate set of legal rules, rather than through further expansion of trademarks. This Article develops a new framework for personal domain name disputes based on the theories underlying the right of publicity * Professor, Co-Director, Center for Law, Technology and the Arts, Associate Director, Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The author would particularly like to thank Professor Mark Janis whose comments on a previous paper proved to be the inspiration for this one. The author would also like to thank Professor Diane Zimmerman, Professor Mark Lemley, Professor Cynthia Ho, Professor Mark McKenna, Professor Brett Frischmann, Professor Lawrence Solum, Professor Amitai Aviram, Professor Ann Bartow, Professor Paul Heald, Professor Ilhyung Lee, and Professor B.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Non-Executive Directors of Channel 4 1981–92
    Appendix A: Non-Executive Directors of Channel 4 1981–92 The Rt. Hon. Edmund Dell (Chairman 1981–87) Sir Richard Attenborough (Deputy Chairman 1981–86) (Director 1987) (Chairman 1988–91) George Russell (Deputy Chairman 1 Jan 1987–88) Sir Brian Bailey (1 July 1985–89) (Deputy Chairman 1990) Sir Michael Bishop CBE (Deputy Chairman 1991) (Chairman 1992–) David Plowright (Deputy Chairman 1992–) Lord Blake (1 Sept 1983–87) William Brown (1981–85) Carmen Callil (1 July 1985–90) Jennifer d’Abo (1 April 1986–87) Richard Dunn (1 Jan 1989–90) Greg Dyke (11 April 1988–90) Paul Fox (1 July 1985–87) James Gatward (1 July 1984–89) John Gau (1 July 1984–88) Roger Graef (1981–85) Bert Hardy (1992–) Dr Glyn Tegai Hughes (1983–86) Eleri Wynne Jones (22 Jan 1987–90) Anne Lapping (1 Jan 1989–) Mary McAleese (1992–) David McCall (1981–85) John McGrath (1990–) The Hon. Mrs Sara Morrison (1983–85) Sir David Nicholas CBE (1992–) Anthony Pragnell (1 July 1983–88) Usha Prashar (1991–) Peter Rogers (1982–91) Michael Scott (1 July 1984–87) Anthony Smith (1981–84) Anne Sofer (1981–84) Brian Tesler (1981–85) Professor David Vines (1 Jan 1987–91) Joy Whitby (1981–84) 435 Appendix B: Channel 4 Major Programme Awards 1983–92 British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) 1983: The Snowman – Best Children’s Programme – Drama 1984: Another Audience With Dame Edna – Best Light Entertainment 1987: Channel 4 News – Best News or Outside Broadcast Coverage 1987: The Lowest of the Low – Special Award for Foreign Documentary 1987: Network 7 – Special Award for Originality
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark 101 Part 5: How to Use Trademarks Correctly (So You Don’T Lose Rights)
    P.O. Box 128 Rockdale, Texas 76567 254.218.4201 | [email protected] Trademark 101 Part 5: How to Use Trademarks Correctly (so you don’t lose rights) You invest a lot in developing the brands that represent your company and your products to the world, whether it be product names, logos, taglines, or other identifiers – otherwise known as your trademarks. But using your trademarks incorrectly can risk losing some or even all of your rights, even if registered your trademarks. You can prevent this by following a few simple rules: Never use a trademark as a generic word, or noun, for the product or as a verb referencing use of the product. Keep in mind that a trademark is a brand. A noun, i.e., the generic name of a thing itself, cannot serve as a trademark, because it does not distinguish between your products and someone else’s. Similarly, a verb is a word for an action one undertakes, so it also cannot serve the trademark function of distinguishing between products. When a trademark is used repeatedly as a noun, consumers may come to think of the mark as the generic name of the product itself, or if used repeatedly or a verb, to think of the mark as referring to using the product, rather than as distinguishing between goods or services of the same type. In such cases, the “mark” no longer serves as a trademark and loses all trademark protection it once had. This is called “genericide” – death by becoming generic. For example, ASPIRIN and ELEVATOR each began as distinctive trademarks, but over time, consumers came to associate those words with the types of goods, rather than as a brand distinguishing one company’s pain reliever or lift from those of another.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis on Anti-Dilution Protection of Well-Known Trademark Zhi-Sheng
    2nd Asia-Pacific Social Science and Modern Education Conference (SSME 2019) ISBN: 978-1-60595-678-7 Analysis on Anti-dilution Protection of Well-known Trademark Zhi-sheng Xue1,a and Fang Liu2,b 1School of Law of Tiangong University, 399, Binshuixidao Xiqing District Tianjin, P.R.C 2School of Law of Tiangong University, 399, Binshuixidao Xiqing District Tianjin, P.R.C [email protected], [email protected] Keywords: well-known trademark, anti-dilution, protection Abstract. A well-known trademark is one that is familiar to the public and has a higher reputation in the market, but dilution refers to the phenomenon that the trademark is weakened or even damaged. In addition, well-known trademark and the Socialist market economy are inseparable, so the authors think It is necessary to explore the related system of well-known trademark and protest it. Through explaining the concept of well-known trademark and dilution, combining with the existing problems of well-known trademark, the paper shows that It is important to pay attention to the well-known trademark and protest the legitimate rights and interests of the well-known trademark. Through the above, some suggestions are put forward in order to solve the problem of dilution of well-known trademark. 1 Introduction The anti-dilution protection of well-known trademark is an important system of protecting well-known trademark, it is of great significance for protesting the trademark owner and maintaining the stability of the trademark environment. But in the actual life, our country is not perfect about the protest of anti-dilution in well-known trademark.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Prostitution: New Technologies and the World's Oldest Profession David Cardiff
    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 18 | Number 4 Article 6 1-1-1996 Virtual Prostitution: New Technologies and the World's Oldest Profession David Cardiff Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation David Cardiff, Virtual Prostitution: New Technologies and the World's Oldest Profession, 18 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 869 (1996). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol18/iss4/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Virtual Prostitution: New Technologies and the World's Oldest Profession by DAVID CARDIFF* Table of Contents I. Outline of the New Technologies .......................................... 874 II. A Brief History of the Laws Relating to Pornography ....... 877 A . Pornography in G eneral ................................................... 877 B . D ial-a-Porn C ases .............................................................. 882 C. Pornography as Prostitution Cases .................................. 887 III. Arguments For and Against Aggressive Porn R egulation ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appraisal Institute Trademark Usage Manual
    Trademark Usage Manual for Appraisal Institute Copyright © 2020 Appraisal Institute. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the publisher. TRADEMARK USAGE MANUAL FOR APPRAISAL INSTITUTE Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Trademarks, Service Marks, Collective Service Marks and Collective Membership Marks 1 III. Trade Names are Different from Trademarks 2 IV. Proper Trademark Usage 3 A. Always Use Trademarks as Proper Adjectives ............................................................................... 3 B. Make the Trademark Stand Out .................................................................................................... 3 C. Only One Trademark Should Appear on the Same Label or Name Plate ....................................... 4 D. Use of Appraisal Institute Trademarks ........................................................................................... 4 1. Signature Requirements and Restrictions ................................................................................ 4 2. Membership Designation Requirements and Restrictions ........................................................ 5 3. Proper Use of Letter Designations ........................................................................................... 5 4. Emblem Requirements and Restrictions .................................................................................
    [Show full text]