Chapter 6: Trademark
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Trademark 6 Trademark 5 The Trade-Mark Cases ............... 5 A Subject Maer ........................ 6 1 Use as a Mark ...................... 6 Lanham Act § 45 (“trademark”) ......... 6 In re Schmidt .................... 6 Drug Stamps Problem .............. 9 2 Distinctiveness ..................... 9 a Words and Phrases ................ 9 Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. .. 9 Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc. ..... 15 TMEP § 1202 .................... 16 Elliot v. Google Inc. ................. 16 TMEP § 1209.03 .................. 23 b Designs ....................... 24 Star Industries, Inc. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd. ..... 24 Melting Bad Problem ............... 26 B Ownership .......................... 27 1 Priority at Common Law . 27 Galt House Inc. v. Home Supply Company .... 27 United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. .... 29 Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc. .... 32 Dudley v. HealthSource Chiropractic, Inc. ..... 34 Bilgewater Bill’s Problem ............. 36 2 Federal Registration . 36 a Registration .................... 36 Lanham Act §§ 1(a), 7 ............... 36 Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots ....... 37 Bilgewater Bill’s Problem, Redux ........ 38 b Intent-to-Use Applications . 38 Lanham Act § 1(b) ................. 38 Kelly Services, Inc. v. Creative Harbor, LLC [I] .. 39 Kelly Services, Inc. v. Creative Harbor, LLC [II] . 43 Bilgewater Bill’s Problem, Re-Redux ...... 44 3 Collaborations ..................... 44 Boogie Kings v. Guillory .............. 44 TRADEMARK 2 New Jersey Truth in Music Act ......... 46 TMEP § 1201.03 .................. 47 Duff Problem ................... 47 C Procedures .......................... 48 1 Registration ....................... 48 Lanham Act § 2(a) ................. 48 Lanham Act § 2 .................. 48 Matal v. Tam .................... 48 Iancu v. Brunei .................. 49 TMEP §§ 1302–1304 ................ 49 TMEP §§ 904, 1401, 1402 ............. 50 TMEP § 906 .................... 51 2 Opposition ....................... 51 Lanham Act §§ 2(d), 12, 13 ............ 51 3 Maintenance ...................... 52 Lanham Act §§ 8,9 ................. 52 4 Cancellation and Incontestability . 53 Lanham Act §§ 14, 15 ............... 53 Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. .... 54 5 Abandonment ..................... 55 Lanham Act § 45 (“abandoned”) ........ 55 Procter & Gamble Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Inc. 56 Trademark Throwback Problem ......... 59 D Infringement: Confusion . 59 Lanham Act § 32 .................. 60 Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab ......... 61 Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. Beautyco, Inc. ...... 70 Cheat Sheet Problem ............... 71 Boats Problem ................... 71 E Infringement: Prohibited Conduct . 73 1 Threshold Conditions . 73 Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. .......... 73 Radiance Foundation, Inc. v. NAACP ....... 78 2 Theories of Confusion . 83 a Reverse Confusion . 83 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 20 cmt. f .................... 83 b Initial Interest Confusion . 84 Grotrian, Helfferich, Schul, Th. Steinweg Nachf v. Steinway & Sons ............... 84 Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Enter- tainment ..................... 84 Hearts on Fire Company, LLC v. Blue Nile, Inc. .. 84 c Post-Sale Confusion . 87 TRADEMARK 3 General Motors Corp. v. Keystone Automotive In- dustries, Inc. .................. 87 3 Section 43(a) ...................... 89 Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(A) ............. 89 a Unfair Competition . 90 Margreth Barre, Finding Trademark Use .... 90 William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. .... 91 Blinded Veterans Association v. Blinded American Veterans Foundation .............. 93 b False Endorsement . 95 Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson .......... 96 Conan Properties, Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc. ... 97 International Order of Job’s Daughters v. Linde- burg & Co. ................... 98 c Failure to Aribute . 101 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp 101 4 Dilution . 106 Frank I. Schechter, The Rational Basis of Trade- mark Protection ................. 106 Jeremy N. Sheff, The (Boundedly) Rational Basis of Trademark Liability ............. 107 Ty Inc. v. Perryman ................ 107 Lanham Act § 43(c) ................ 108 Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Intern., Inc. ......... 109 Dilution Lightning Round ............ 117 5 Problems . 119 Ambush Marketing Problem ........... 119 Jack Daniel’s Problem ............... 120 Paper Handbag Problem ............. 120 6 Secondary Liability . 120 Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. 120 Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Lee ........... 121 F Defenses . 124 Lanham Act § 43(c)(3) ............... 124 1 Descriptive Fair Use . 125 Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. .. 125 2 Nominative Fair Use . 126 New Kids on the Block v. New America Pub., Inc. 126 Smith v. Chanel, Inc. ................ 131 3 Exhaustion . 135 Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders ....... 135 Hart v. Amazon.com, Inc. ............. 137 4 Expressive Use . 137 Louis Vuion Malletier v. Haute Diggity Dog .. 137 Louis Vuion Mallatier v. Warner Bros. ...... 147 TRADEMARK 4 5 Miscellaneous . 153 Lanham Act § 32(2) ................ 153 Trademark Defenses Lightning Round ..... 154 G Other Identifier Registries . 160 1 Phone Numbers . 160 Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc. .... 160 Diana Lock, Toll-Free Vanity Telephone Num- bers: Structuring a Trademark Registration and Dispute Selement Regime ......... 162 Jahn v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. .......... 164 2 Radio Callsigns . 166 In re WSM, Inc. ................... 166 3 Business Names . 168 Model Business Corporation Act ........ 168 Harvard Business Services v. Coyle ........ 169 Cooper v. Goodman ................. 170 4 Ticker Symbols . 171 Eric Levenson, Investors Buy Up Worthless Stock After Confusing It for an Actual Success- ful Company .................. 171 FINRA Uniform Practice Advisory # 39 -13 .... 171 Central Parking Corp. v. Park One Inc. ...... 171 Exxon Corp. v. Xoil Energy Resources, Inc. .... 172 MDT Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. .. 174 Comments of James Angel on General Portability Filing ...................... 176 5 ISBNs . 182 ISBN.org, FAQs: General Questions ....... 182 6 License Plates . 184 Nevada Administrative Code § 482.320 .... 184 7 Domain Names . 185 TMEP § 1209.03(m) ................ 185 Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Computer Services, Inc. 186 8 Online Accounts . 189 Twier Rules .................... 189 9 Stage Names . 191 Professional Name Policy .............. 191 David Fagundes, Talk Derby to Me: Intellec- tual Property Norms Governing Roller Derby Pseudonyms ................... 192 6 Trademark Trademarks are different. The Trade-Mark Cases 100 U.S. 82 (1879) Any aempt to identify the essential characteristics of a trademark with inventions and discoveries in the arts and sciences, or with the writings of authors, will show that the effort is surrounded with in- surmountable difficulties. The ordinary trademark has no necessary relation to invention or discovery. The trademark recognized by the common law is gener- ally the growth of a considerable period of use, rather than a sudden invention. It is often the result of accident, rather than design, and when under the act of Congress it is sought to establish it by regis- tration, neither originality, invention, discovery, science, nor art is in any way essential to the right conferred by that act. If we should endeavor to classify it under the head of writings of authors, the ob- jections are equally strong. The trademark may be, and generally is, the adoption of some- thing already in existence as the distinctive symbol of the party using it. At common law, the exclusive right to it grows out of its use, and not its mere adoption. By the act of Congress, this exclusive right aaches upon registration. But in neither case does it depend upon novelty, invention, discovery, or any work of the brain. It requires no fancy or imagination, no genius, no laborious thought. It is sim- ply founded on priority of appropriation. We look in vain in the statute for any other qualification or condition. If the symbol, how- ever plain, simple, old, or well known, has been first appropriated by the claimant as his distinctive trademark, he may by registration secure the right to its exclusive use. CHAPTER 6. TRADEMARK 6 Suppose that the Knockoff Soda Corporation starts selling a cola in It is common to write trademarks con- red cans bearing the familiar COCA-COLA name and logo. There are sisting of words or phrases -- so-called various reasons we might describe this as wrongful: word marks -- in small caps or all caps to indicate that one is writing about the • Most obviously, there is a consumer protection rationale: some trademark. consumers will be deceived into buying a can of soda made by Knockoff rather than by the Coca-Cola Company. • There is an unfair competition angle: Knockoff unjustifiably free rides on the Coca-Cola Company’s reputation for quality. • More subtly, there is a search costs rationale. If consumers can- not quickly tell the difference between a can of COCA-COLA made by Knockoff and one made by Coca-Cola, they will spend more time inspecting cans in minute detail, or give up entirely. "What’s great about this country is that • And perhaps there is a cultural angle, given the importance of America started the tradition where brands like COCA-COLA in modern society. the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You Trademark law is a large and sprawling thing. It is a hybrid of state can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and federal