DOCSLIB.ORG

Trademark Basics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Trademark basics • Signal a common source, or at least affiliation • Words, phrases, logos . • Federal / state regimes • Use in commerce • Law of marks is based on use of the brand on goods • Exclusivity derives from that type of use in commerce • Must: • “Affix” the mark to goods • Move the marked goods in commerce • Registration not needed – but Federal registration is highly beneficial • Service marks • Used “in connection with” services to signal common source • Certification / Collective marks Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 1 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks Service Marks Certification Collective Marks Geographic Marks Indications Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 2 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trade‐Mark Cases 100 U.S. 82 (1879) • Act of 1870 (“An Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the statutes relating to patents and copyrights”); Act of Aug. 14, 1876 (“An act to punish the counterfeiting of trade‐mark goods, and the sale or dealing in, of counterfeit trade‐mark goods”) • U.S. Constitution, I.8.8: “[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” The right to adopt and use a symbol or a device to distinguish the goods or property made or sold by the person whose mark it is, to the exclusion of use by all other persons, has been long recognized by the common law and the chancery courts of England and of this country and by the statutes of some of the states. It is a property right for the violation of which damages may be recovered in an action at law, and the continued violation of it will be enjoined by a court of equity, with compensation for past infringement. This exclusive right was not created by the act of Congress, and does not now depend upon it for its enforcement. The whole system of trademark property and the civil remedies for its protection existed long anterior to that act, and have remained in full force since its passage. There propositions are so well understood as to require neither the citation of authorities nor an elaborate argument to prove them. Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 3 Trademarks, Spring 2016 http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2012/Best-Global-Brands-2012-Brand-View.aspx Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 4 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 5 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademark protection • Distinctive • Not disqualified • Used in commerce • Not required: • registration • Form of symbol can vary greatly Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 6 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) • Safari mark • Alleged infringing uses by Hunting World • Safari • Minisafari • Safariland • Use as applied to products versus in language? • Continuum of distinctiveness for a word mark • Application • Generic for clothing • Suggestive or descriptive for boots / shoes • But, “incontestable” Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 7 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademark continuum of distinctiveness for word marks Generic DescriptiveSuggestive Arbitrary / Fanciful / Coined aspirin “Brilliant” for “Brilliant” for “Brilliant” for diamonds shoe polish canned apple sauce Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 8 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Descriptive? character function feature quality ingredient nature purpose use characteristics dimensions, color, odor. Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 9 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Genericness Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 10 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Generic‐ness Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 11 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Zatarain’s • Attributes of Zatarain’s marks? • Classification of marks? • Secondary meaning? • “Fair use” defense ‐ 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4) Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 12 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Zatarain’s • Fish‐Fri • Suggestive or generic – either side of descriptiveness • Dictionary ‐ ordinary significance and meaning of the words • Imagination test • Whether competitors need to use the term • Extent of actual use by others to describe/identify • Secondary meaning • What if a mark is incontestable? • Factors / Circumstantial evidence • Amount of advertising and promotion of mark and connection to product • Volume and type of sales (repeat?) • Length and manner of use of mark • Market research ‐ testimony / articles / reviews / surveys • Surveys – most direct and persuasive • Bad faith copying (“NY rule”) • “Fair use” defense ‐ 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4) • Used fairly in good faith only to describe to users the goods or services . or their geographic origin. • Impact of trade dress on “fair use” in this case? Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 13 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Zatarain’s • Chick‐Fri • Classification? • Secondary meaning? Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 14 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc. 694 F.3d 723, 729‐730 (6th Cir. 2012) Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 15 Trademarks, Spring 2016 “Primarily geographically descriptive” marks • A mark will be deemed primarily geographically descriptive under § 2(e)(2) if: 1. the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location; 2. the goods or services originate in the place identified in the mark; and 3. purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark. TMEP §1210.01(a). Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 16 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Certification Marks • The term ''certification mark'' means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof – • (1) used by a person other than its owner, or • (2) which its owner has a bona fide intention to permit a person other than the owner to use in commerce and files an application to register on the principal register established by this chapter, • to certify • regional or other origin, • material, • mode of manufacture, • quality, • accuracy, • or other characteristics of such person's goods or services • or that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 • Must be open to any producer that meets the standards. Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 17 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Collective Marks • The term ''collective mark'' means a trademark or service mark – • (1) used by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization, or • (2) which such cooperative, association, or other collective group or organization has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter, • and includes marks indicating membership in a union, an association, or other organization. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 • Two possible functions of the collective mark with respect to the association, union, cooperative, fraternal organization or other organized collective group using the mark: • As a mark adopted for use only by its members, who in turn use the mark to identify goods or services – mostly treated as ordinary trademarks/service marks • Solely to identify the person displaying a mark as a member of the collective group – a membership mark • The term ''mark'' includes any trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 18 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Classifying other types of marks • Surnames • Acronyms • Domain names • Foreign Equivalents Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 19 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Lanham Act – Important Sections • Section 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1051: Actual use and intent to use registration process • Section 2, 15 U.S.C. § 1052: Bars to registration • Section 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114: Infringement of registered marks • Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a): Infringement of unregistered marks • Section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c): Dilution of marks (registered or unregistered) • Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127: Definitions Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 20 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Acquired Distinctiveness of Source • Rough synonyms Imagine a situation in which Company David, after a • Secondary meaning great deal of market research, adopts an especially • Trademark meaning good descriptive mark and initiates a small‐scale launch of the descriptive mark in the marketplace. • Acquired distinctiveness Company Goliath then becomes aware of Company • Acquired trademark meaning David’s mark, adopts the mark as its own, and immediately spends enormous resources building up secondary meaning in the mark, so that when consumers see the mark, they think of Company Goliath. Which company should be granted rights in the mark? And is this in your view an equitable or efficient outcome? (Part I, pg. 42) Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 21 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. (5th Cir. 1983) • Approaches to determining whether a mark is descriptive (rather than suggestive/arbitrary): • Dictionary definition • Imagination test • Competitive need • Third‐party uses • See also TMEP 1209.03 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 22 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Frosty Treats Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America (8th Cir. 2005) • Alleged infringement is use in a video game • Sony wins by summary judgment that Frosty Treat’s mark is generic or descriptive lacking secondary meaning • Secondary meaning analysis for FROSTY TREAT Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 23 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Cartier, Inc. v. Four Star Jewelry Creations, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2004) • Discussion of survey evidence as to whether the designs had acquired distinctiveness Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 24 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Summary of Distinctiveness Doctrine So Far • Distinctiveness and the Abercrombie spectrum • A mark is “distinctive” (of source) if it possesses either “inherent distinctiveness” or “acquired distinctiveness” • Inherently distinctive marks consist of suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks. • Non‐inherently distinctive marks consist of generic and descriptive marks. Descriptive marks may receive protection if they possess “acquired distinctiveness” (i.e., “secondary meaning”).
Recommended publications
  • EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Merck & Co

    EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Merck & Co

    ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Merck & Co, Inc. v. Merck KGaA Case No. LRO2013-0068 1. The Parties Objector/Complainant is Merck & Co, Inc., United States of America, represented by Reed Smith LLP, United States of America. Applicant/Respondent is Merck KGaA, Germany, represented by Bettinger Schneider Schramm, Germany. 2. The applied-for gTLD string The applied-for gTLD string is <.emerck> (the “Disputed gTLD String”). 3. Procedural History The Legal Rights Objection (“LRO”) was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “WIPO Center”) on March 13, 2013 pursuant to the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (the “Procedure”). An amended Objection was filed with the WIPO Center on March 27, 2013. In accordance with Article 9 of the Procedure, the WIPO Center has completed the review of the Objection on March 28, 2013 and has determined that the Objection complies with the requirements of the Procedure and the World Intellectual Property Organization Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution for Existing Legal Rights Objections (the “WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution”). In accordance with Article 11(a) of the Procedure, the WIPO Center formally notified Applicant of the Objection, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2013. In accordance with Article 11(b) and relevant communication provisions of the Procedure, the Response was timely filed with the WIPO Center on May 15, 2013. The WIPO Center appointed Willem J.H. Leppink as the Panel in this matter on June 14, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the WIPO Center to ensure compliance with Article 13(c) of the Procedure and Paragraph 9 of WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution.
  • When a Landmark Cannot Serve As a Trademark: Trademark Protection for Building Designs

    When a Landmark Cannot Serve As a Trademark: Trademark Protection for Building Designs

    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 2 Re-Engineering Patent Law: The Challenge of New Technologies January 2000 When a Landmark Cannot Serve as a Trademark: Trademark Protection for Building Designs Andrew T. Spence Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew T. Spence, When a Landmark Cannot Serve as a Trademark: Trademark Protection for Building Designs, 2 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 517 (2000), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol2/iss1/17 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. When a Landmark Cannot Serve as a Trademark: Trademark Protection for Building Designs in Light of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions Andrew T. Spence* For many years the law has recognized the availability of buildings to serve as trademarks. A federally registered trademark exists for the art deco spire of the Chrysler Building and the neoclassical facade of the New York Stock Exchange.1 In fact, approximately one hundred buildings have federally registered trademarks.2 However, the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions narrowed the scope of protection that such trademarks enjoy.3 In a 1998 split decision, the court reversed a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement suit between the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum and Charles Gentile, a professional photographer.
  • Trademarks, Metatags, and Initial Interest Confusion: a Look to the Past to Re- Conceptualize the Future

    Trademarks, Metatags, and Initial Interest Confusion: a Look to the Past to Re- Conceptualize the Future

    173 TRADEMARKS, METATAGS, AND INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION: A LOOK TO THE PAST TO RE- CONCEPTUALIZE THE FUTURE CHAD J. DOELLINGER* INTRODUCTION Web sites, through domain names and metatags, have created a new set of problems for trademark owners. A prominent problem is the use of one’s trademarks in the metatags of a competitor’s web site. The initial interest confusion doctrine has been used to combat this problem.1 Initial interest confusion involves infringement based on confusion that creates initial customer interest, even though no transaction takes place.2 Several important questions have currently received little atten- tion: How should initial interest confusion be defined? How should initial interest confusion be conceptualized? How much confusion is enough to justify a remedy? Who needs to be confused, when, and for how long? How should courts determine when initial interest confusion is sufficient to support a finding of trademark infringement? These issues have been glossed over in the current debate by both courts and scholars alike. While the two seminal opinions involving the initial interest confusion doctrine, Brookfield Commun., Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp.3 and * B.A., B.S., University of Iowa (1998); J.D., Yale Law School (2001). Mr. Doellinger is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. The author would like to thank Uli Widmaier for his assistance and insights. The views and opinions in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson. 1 See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, vol.
  • Defenses to Trademark Infringement: Fair & Nominative

    Defenses to Trademark Infringement: Fair & Nominative

    CHAPTER EIGHT Defenses to Trademark Infringement: Fair & Nominative Use We have already seen many of the internal limitations of trademark law. Its rights are constrained from their creation—ownership not of the word, or the image, but rather the word or image used in relationship to a particular good or service. They are constrained by the requirements of use in commerce, not only before the rights are obtained, but as a con- tinuing requirement for the right to exist. They are constrained by the requirement of use as a mark—both that the signals must be deliberately sent by the producer as trademarks— not mottos or mission statements—and in the distinctiveness, acquired or inherent, perceived by the consumer. They are constrained by the limitations that trademarks can never be over functional features of the product; TrafFix provides one obvious example, but so does the discussion in Qualitex of all the occasions on which color cannot be owned, such as green for farm equipment, given that fashion-conscious farmers may want their tractors to match. They are constrained by the limitation of genericide, or “genericity.” Even if the producer created an entirely new name—fanciful and arbitrary—that mark will be lost if it becomes the generic term for the goods or services involved. Finally, they are constrained by the reach—however indeterminate—of the requirements of the First Amendment, to allow speech and commentary about the mark, and of the requirements of efficient competitive consumer communication in the marketplace. In this chapter, we focus on two particular defenses, fair use and nominative use, which reflect these limitations but also illustrate their operation in action, particularly in the context of new business models and new technologies such as the internet.
  • Sorting out "Fair Use" and "Likelihood of Confusion" in Trademark Law

    Sorting out "Fair Use" and "Likelihood of Confusion" in Trademark Law

    Sorting out "fair use" and "likelihood of confusion" in trademark law Author: Stephanie M. Greene Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/1471 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Published in American Business Law Journal, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 43-77, Spring 2006 Use of this resource is governed by the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States" (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/) American Business Law Journal Volume 43, Issue 1, 43-77, Spring 2006 Sorting Out "Fair Use" and "Likelihood of Confusion" in Trademark Law Stephanie M. Greene* I. INTRODUCTION A seller may unwittingly provoke a trademark infringement suit merely by using language in advertising or on a label that describes his product.1 Although descriptive terms, in general, are not protected by trademark law, such terms may receive protection if they have acquired secondary meaning.2 If the mark has been registered and has been in commercial use *Assistant Professor, Wallace E. Carroll School of Management, Boston College. 1The Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, commonly known as the Lanham Act, defines a trademark as "any word, name, symbol, or device" used by a person "to distinguish his or her goods ... from those manufactured or sold by others to indicate the source of the goods... ." 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2000). 2SEE Graeme B. Dinwoodie, The Seventh Annual Honorable Helen Wilson Nies Memorial Lecture in Intellectual Property Law: The 'Trademark Jurisprudence of the Rehnquist Court, 8 MARQ. INTELL.
  • The Doctrine of Functionality in Design Patent Cases

    The Doctrine of Functionality in Design Patent Cases

    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 19 Article 17 Issue 1 Number 1 – 2 — Fall 1989/Winter 1990 1989 The oD ctrine of Functionality in Design Patent Cases Perry J. Saidman SAIDMAN DesignLaw Group, LLC John M. Hintz Rimon, P.C. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Saidman, Perry J. and Hintz, John M. (1989) "The octrD ine of Functionality in Design Patent Cases," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 19: Iss. 1, Article 17. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol19/iss1/17 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 administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DOCTRINE OF FUNCTIONALITY IN DESIGN PATENT CASES Perry J. Saidmant John M. Hintztt Although the doctrine of functionality has received much attention in its application in trademark law, I courts and commentators have devoted an inadequate amount of attention to the doctrine as it applies to design pat­ ents. This Article attempts such an analysis of the functionality doctrine in the design patent context by discussing the origins of the doctrine, review­ ing the leading cases on the issue, and focusing on the underlying reasons for and purpose of the doctrine. This Article concludes that because courts have interpreted the doctrine in two nominally different ways, there is a danger that courts will indiscriminately apply different standards when determining whether a design is functional or nonfunctional.
  • Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny Vanessa P

    Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny Vanessa P

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Marquette University Law School Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 13 | Issue 2 Article 3 Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny Vanessa P. Rollins Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, Michigan Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Vanessa P. Rollins, Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny, 13 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 285 (2009). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol13/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ROLLINS FINAL FORMATTED 5-28-09 REVISED 6-18-09 6/19/2009 2:54 PM TRADEMARK FAIR USE: BRAUN® VERSUS THE BUNNY VANESSA P. ROLLINS* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 285 I. TRADEMARKS—LOGOS AND PRODUCT DESIGN ........................ 289 A. Descriptive Fair Use .................................................................. 291 II. NOMINATIVE FAIR USE ................................................................... 295 III. APPLICATION OF NOMINATIVE FAIR USE BEYOND PLAIN- TEXT WORD MARKS ........................................................................ 302 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 305 INTRODUCTION The Author was rather tickled (no pun intended), by a story out of the United Kingdom concerning the confluence of two seemingly unrelated products—a vibrating toothbrush and plastic sex-toy shaped like a bunny.1 The plastic bunny was designed specifically to work with a vibrating toothbrush, turning it into a vibrating bunny-shaped sex-toy.
  • Mere Allegations of Bad Faith Insufficient Under UDRP, Even in Obvious Cybersquatting Cybersquatting Cases International - Hogan Lovells LLP

    Mere Allegations of Bad Faith Insufficient Under UDRP, Even in Obvious Cybersquatting Cybersquatting Cases International - Hogan Lovells LLP

    Mere allegations of bad faith insufficient under UDRP, even in obvious Cybersquatting cybersquatting cases International - Hogan Lovells LLP June 10 2013 In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the panel has held that the mere registration of domain names consisting of obvious misspellings of a trademark, without supporting evidence of bad-faith registration and use, is insufficient to obtain the transfer of the domain names. The complainant, Ticket Software LLC (Connecticut, United States), owned the US trademark TICKETNETWORK (Registration No 2,956,502), registered on May 31 2005 and used in connection with computer software for the purchase and sale of entertainment tickets. The complainant operates a website at ‘www.ticketnetwork.com’, where it has created an online marketplace for sale of entertainment tickets. The respondent was Stephen Troy, a private individual from Florida, United States, who had registered the domain names ‘ricketnetwork.com’, ‘ticketneteork.com’, ‘ticketnetwirk.com’, ‘ticketnetworj.com’ and ‘tivketnetwork.com’ using a proxy service provided by the domain name registrar. The domain names were registered on January 13 2011 and did not point to an active website. The complainant contended that the respondent had engaged in typosquatting, given that the domain names consisted of common typographical errors made by internet users when attempting to reach the complainant's official website, and thus filed a complaint under the UDRP to recover the domain names. To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy all of the following three requirements: l The domain name is identical, or confusingly similar, to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; l The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and l The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
  • Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O Ce

    Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O Ce

    Protecting Your Trademark ENHANCING YOUR RIGHTS THROUGH FEDERAL REGISTRATION Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O ce Published on February 2020 Our website resources For general information and links to Frequently trademark Asked Questions, processing timelines, the Trademark NEW [2] basics Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) , and FILERS the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual)[3]. Protecting Your Trademark Trademark Information Network (TMIN) Videos[4] Enhancing Your Rights Through Federal Registration Tools TESS Search pending and registered marks using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)[5]. File applications and other documents online using the TEAS Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)[6]. Check the status of an application and view and TSDR download application and registration records using Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR)[7]. Transfer (assign) ownership of a mark to another ASSIGNMENTS entity or change the owner name and search the Assignments database[8]. Visit the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)[9] TTAB online. United States Patent and Trademark Office An Agency of the United States Department of Commerce UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BASIC FACTS ABOUT TRADEMARKS CONTENTS MEET THE USPTO ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1 TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT, OR PATENT ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
  • The Collective Trademark: Invitation to Abuse

    The Collective Trademark: Invitation to Abuse

    THE COLLECTIVE TRADEMARK: INVITATION TO ABUSE THaF, relatively recent statutory protection accorded collective trade and service marks encourages competitors to merchandise their products under a single trade emblem,' and thereby threatens interference with both antitrust and traditional trademark policies. Ordinarily, the users of a collective trade or service mark are a limited group of competitors belonging to an association which owns and registers, but does not itself use, the mark. 2 This type of mark was unprotected as such at common law,3 because the right to exclude others from appropriating a trademark could be acquired only by its owner through previous use.4 Today, however, the Lanham Act grants the collective mark 1. Collective marks were first authorized by federal law in the Act of June 10, 1938, ch. 332, 52 Stat. 638. For discussions of collective marks, see 3 CALLMANN, UNFAIR COMPETITION & TRADE- M.ARKs 1034-41 (2d ed. 1950) [hereinafter cited as CALLMANN] ; AMDUR, TRADE-MARK LAW & PRAcric 81-85 (Lanham Act ed. 1948) ; RoBERT, THE NEW TRADE-MARK MANUAL 6-7, 17, 44-46 (1947) (written under her maiden name by Assistant Commissioner of Patents Daphne R. Leeds) [hereinafter cited as ROBERT] ; Hancock, Notes From the Patent Office, 47 TRADEmARx REP. 458 (1957). Information on currently registered collective marks and their use was obtained for this Note in the Patent Office's Trademark Search Room, and through interviews with and questionnaires returned by several association-registrants. Information from these sources is cited as INTERVIEs. 2. "The term 'collective mark' means a trade-mark or service mark used by the mem- bers of a cooperative, an association or other collective group or organization and includes marks used to indicate membership in a union, an association or other organization." Trade- Mark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) § 45, 60 Stat.
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice

    Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice

    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
  • Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace

    Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace

    Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition G. Peter Albert, Jr. and American Intellectual Property Law Association CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION American Intellectual Property Law Association A Arlington, VA Reprinted with permission For more information contact: bna.com/bnabooks or call 1-800-960-1220 Copyright © 2011 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Albert, G. Peter, 1964– Intellectual property law in cyberspace / G. Peter Albert, Jr. -- 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57018-753-7 (alk. paper) 1. Industrial property--United States. 2. Computer networks--Law and legislation--United States. 3. Internet 4. Copyright and electronic data processing--United States. I. Title. KF3095.A77 2011 346.7304’8--dc23 2011040494 All rights reserved. Photocopying any portion of this publication is strictly prohibited unless express written authorization is first obtained from BNA Books, 1231 25th St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, bna.com/bnabooks. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by BNA Books for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that $1.00 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, copyright.com, Telephone: 978-750-8400, Fax: 978-646-8600.