DOCSLIB.ORG

VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 NYU Journal of Intellectual Property

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

JIPEL NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & ENTERTAINMENT LAW VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 CONTENTS Preface ................................................................................................................................. v ESSAY EEEEEEEYOOOOOO!: Reflections on Protecting Pitbull’s Famous Grito ..................................... 179 Justin F. McNaughton, Esq., Ryan Kairalla, Esq., Leslie José Zigel, Esq., and Armando Christian Perez ARTICLE CopyrigHt in tHe Texts of tHe Law: Historical Perspectives ...................... 191 Charles Duan NOTES Towards a Trademark Rule of Reason ....................................................... 222 Daniel M. Lifton Of Mouse and Men: Will Mickey Mouse Live Forever? ........................... 249 Sarah Sue Landau Patent Term Extension and the Active Ingredient Problem ....................... 279 Nicholas G. Vincent, Ph.D. i Statement of Purpose Consistent with its unique development, The New York University Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law (JIPEL) is a nonpartisan periodical specializing in the analysis of timely and cutting-edge topics in the world of intellectual property and entertainment law. As NYU’s first online-only journal, JIPEL also provides an opportunity for discourse through comments from all of its readers. There are no subscriptions, or subscription fees; in keeping with the open-access and free discourse goals of the students responsible for JIPEL’s existence, the content is available for free to anyone interested in intellectual property and entertainment law. ii Cite as N.Y.U. J. INTELL. PROP. & ENT. L. The New York University Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law is published two times per year at the New York University School of Law, 139 MacDougal Street, New York, New York, 10012. In keeping with the Journal’s open access and free discourse goals subscriptions are free of charge and can be accessed via www.jipel.law.nyu.edu. Inquiries may be made via telephone (212-998- 6101) or electronic mail ([email protected]). The Journal invites authors to submit pieces for publication consideration. Footnotes and citations should follow the rules set forth in the latest edition of The Bluebook A Uniform System of Citation. All pieces submitted become the property of the Journal. We review submissions through ExpressO Bepress (http://law.bepress.com/ expresso/) and through electronic mail ([email protected]). All works copyright © 2020 by the author, except when otherwise expressly indicated. For permission to reprint a piece or any portion thereof, please contact the journal in writing. Except as otherwise provided, the author of each work in this issue has granted permission for copies of that article to be made for classroom use, provided that (1) copies are distributed to students free of cost, (2) the author and the Journal are identified on each copy, and (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy. A nonpartisan periodical, the Journal is committed to presenting diverse views on intellectual property and entertainment law. Accordingly, the opinions and affiliations of the authors presented herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Journal members. The Journal is also available on WESTLAW, LEXIS-NEXIS and HeinOnline. iii NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & ENTERTAINMENT LAW VOL. 9 BOARD OF EDITORS – ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020 Editor-In-Chief NICHOLAS G. VINCENT Senior Articles Editor Managing Editors Executive Editor YANG LI GABRIEL B. FERRANTE LAURA ZHU KATHRYN LEICHT Senior Notes Editor Senior Web Editor KYUNG TAECK “ROBERT” MINN OREN STEVENS Senior Editors PAIGE GEIER JOSHUA PERKINS DAVID ZHIKUN JIANG MAGGIE A. REINFIELD DANIEL LIFTON CHRISTINE SONG ELINA MILSHTEIN JACKIE ZACHARIADIS Staff Editors ZACHARY J. BASS GARRETT C. HELLER ERIC M. PECCI ZACHARY M. BRONER LIA M. HIGGINS KEVIN QIAO CASSI CARLEY NICHOLAS J. ISAACSON JOE RABINOVITSJ LVXIAO CHEN JESSE KIRKLAND PATRICK A. REED NEIL CHITRAO ANASTASIYA KRYUKOVA KIANA M. ROBINSON MAGDALENA CHRISTOFOROU ZACHARY A. LANDOW MINYOUNG RYOO MARIO CISTARO DANIEL Y. LEE GABRIELA C. SCHNEIDER SEAN S. CUNNINGHAM GUS LONGER SIDDRA SHAH JOANNE DYNAK FRANCESCA MASELLA ASHLEY C. ULRICH KELSEY R. GEDIN RYAN B. MCLEOD JEFFREY P. WALDRON ALEXANDER GLOSSMAN NEHA MEHTA DAVID E. WRIGHT AMANDA GONZALEZ BURTON MARCELO MEIRELLES LEAO DE SIYU YAN CAITLIN HALL-SWAN BARROS JERRIT YANG Faculty Advisors AMY ADLER BARTON BEEBE iv PREFACE Our Spring 2020 issue, Volume 9, Issue 2, is comprised of five individual pieces that explore significant, current themes in intellectual property and entertainment law, ranging from providing guidance from practice and experience, to questioning the very underlying legal framework of trademark law. In fact, each piece in this issue is focused on one of the fundamental areas of intellectual property law—trademark, copyright, and patent—but each intersects vitally with other disciplines from both inside and outside the world of IP, ranging from the music and entertainment industries, to history, to antitrust, to regulatory law. In their essay, Justin F. McNaughton, Ryan Kairalla, Leslie José Zigel, and Armando Christian Perez (known professionally as Pitbull) illustrate their efforts in obtaining a sound trademark in Pitbull’s famed yell, also known as a grito, for use in live and recorded musical performances. This effort illustrates the first time the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a trademark in the principal register for musical sound recordings. McNaughton, Kairalla, Zigel, and Perez illustrate the important impacts that obtaining this trademark will likely have both on the music industry and the entertainment industry more broadly. Charles Duan provides an insightful and probing historical analysis of copyrights in the text of the law. In his article, Duan argues that States are incorrect in claiming a copyright interest in their official published codes of law. This article, and the argument contained therein, is particularly timely and important: in late April 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. that non-binding legal materials, such as annotations to state statutes, are not copyrightable. Duan models his article on an amicus brief he authored and submitted as part of the litigation, and it provides an in-depth, and often overlooked, historical analysis of practices in this area. Moving to the student notes in Volume 9, Issue 2, Daniel Lifton’s first analyzes the current state of trademark law, particularly with regards to the “Likelihood of Confusion” standard for trademark infringement liability. Lifton explains why this approach does not work across all types of confusion (such as post-sale confusion) and advocates the introduction of a “trademark rule of reason,” similar to that found in antitrust law, to cover infringement liability where appropriate. In doing this, Lifton highlights trademark law as a species v of competition policy and carefully and completely addresses why the introduction of a rule of reason standard would better advance the goals and aims, broadly speaking, of trademark law. Next, Sarah Sue Landau’s note explores the vital intersection between copyright law and trademark law, deftly analyzing the history of Mickey Mouse and the famous character’s impending expiring copyright. In particular, Landau looks at challenges surrounding overlapping protection—that is, when something receives both copyright and trademark protection—and works to provide a clear set of recommendations for ameliorating the current dilemma. Landau’s analysis illustrates the broad set of options that courts, legislatures, and copyright- and trademark-holders have in navigating this complex legal landscape. Finally, I present my own note, which discusses the intersection of patent term extension (PTE) and the FDA regulatory approval process for pharmaceutical products. PTE is a statutorily- granted extension in patent term meant to compensate for the time that it takes for a pharmaceutical product to go through the regulatory approval process. In particular, I look at the current challenges of applying patent term extension provisions to current, novel therapeutics. I aim to establish a new path forward, proposing a way for the law to catch up more quickly and efficiently with the rapid developments in the world of clinical therapeutics. I hope that you enjoy this issue. On behalf of the 2019–2020 JIPEL editorial board, I thank all of you for following our work through the past year and Volume, and I hope that you will continue to read Volume 10 and beyond. Sincerely, Nicholas G. Vincent, PhD Editor-in-Chief NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law vi NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW VOLUME 9 SPRING 2020 NUMBER 2 ESSAY EEEEEEEYOOOOOO!: REFLECTIONS ON PROTECTING PITBULL’S FAMOUS GRITO JUSTIN F. MCNAUGHTON, ESQ., RYAN KAIRALLA, ESQ., LESLIE JOSÉ ZIGEL, ESQ., AND ARMANDO CHRISTIAN PEREZ* “I’ve worked so hard on crafting my sound and my brand over the years, and I am so pleased that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has awarded me trademark registrations in my original “Eyo” chant for musical sound recordings and live performances. ¡Dale!” -Pitbull PROLOGUE ............................................................................................................. 180 I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Trademark Law 2020 the Year in Review

    Trademark Law 2020 the Year in Review

    Trademark Law 2020 www.morogluarseven.com The Year in Review Index Introduction - Exception to The Mandatory Mediation Procedure 4 We welcome the new year still reeling from the one - The Future of Well-Known Trademark Registrations is Under Threat 8 just ended; still grappling with the lingering effects of - Court of Cassation Rules On Loss Of Rights By Remaining Silent and an ongoing global pandemic. No industry or profession Bad Faith 12 emerged from 2020 unaltered. Trademark law practice is no exception. Nevertheless, we must chart a well- - Uncertainty Remains over Acquired Rights in Trademark Law 16 informed course for 2021. To that end, we present - Does Use in Free Shops Constitute Trademark Use in Turkey? 20 Moroğlu Arseven’s survey of last year’s important - Impact of The COVID-19 Pandemic on Anti-Counterfeiting 24 trademark law developments. - The TPTO Takes a Helpful Approach to Classification 28 - A Review of Non-Traditional Trademarks Filed at The TPTO 32 Moroğlu Arseven - New TPTO Practice for Notifying Oppositions to International Trademark Applications 36 -A Stricter Approach to Descriptiveness and Distinctive Character as Absolute Grounds for Refusal 40 2 Trademark Law 2020 | The Year in Review Trademark Law 2020 | The Year in Review 3 Mediation became mandatory for commercial The generally accepted view on how to apply cases initiated with monetary claims pursuant mandatory mediation has changed in cases to the Law on the Procedure of Initiating the where more than one request is brought Proceedings for Monetary Claims Arising together. In the early stages of the practice, Exception to from the Subscription Agreement and the mediation was accepted as a pre-condition for supplemental article 5 / A of the Turkish every case which involved a monetary claim.
  • OVERVIEW of TRADEMARK LAWS in INDIA Index Slide Particulars Slide Particulars Nos

    OVERVIEW of TRADEMARK LAWS in INDIA Index Slide Particulars Slide Particulars Nos

    OVERVIEW OF TRADEMARK LAWS IN INDIA Index Slide Particulars Slide Particulars nos. nos. 3. India as an amenable jurisdiction 13-20. Recognition i. Registered trademarks under the Act ii. Well-known trademarks iii. Trade dress 4. Trademark as an international concept 21-26. Protection: i. Ownership ii. Opposition iii. Rectification / cancellation iv. Cross-bd/border/ trans-bdborder reputtitation 5-8. International Trademark law: 27-28. Actions– infringement and passing – off i. Paris Convention ii. TRIPS iii. Madrid Protocol 9. Indian Statutory Law: Trademarks Act, 1999 30-33. Civil and criminal remedies i. Civil – injunction, damages and accounts of profits, costs, delivery-up, other restraint orders, ii. Criminal – imprisonment and fine 10-12. Draft Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules, 2015 34. Conclusion and Na tiona l In te llec tua l Proper tty RiRight hts Po licy, 2016 India as an amenable jurisdiction India is widely recognized as an amenable jurisdiction for trademark registration and protection of trademark rights, inter alia : Constant modernization of trademark offices with a vision to protect IPR; leading to growth in trade, commerce and industry; Multi-tier enforcement mechanism – Registrar, intellectual property appellate board (IPAB), civil and criminal courts; At the Registrar level: Wide recognition of trademarks, trade-dress and well-known trademarks; Speedy registration process (constantly improving; for instance, the finance minister of India has proposed a policy which will allow registration of trademarks within a period
  • Registrability of Non-Conventional Trademarks: a Critical Analysis

    Registrability of Non-Conventional Trademarks: a Critical Analysis

    [ VOLUME 6 I ISSUE 1 I JAN.– MARCH 2019] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138 Registrability of non-conventional trademarks: A critical analysis Dr. Mwirigi K. Charles* & T. Sowmya Krishnan** *Post-Doctoral Fellow, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, 560029. **Scholar, Master of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, 560029. Received: January 10, 2019 Accepted: February 28, 2019 ABSTRACT: In the globalized age when international cross-border trade is taking place, marks have become a key tool to indicate an identity of the company. A good trade mark has its own picture, attaches distinctive personality to the goods and is a competitive essence. Modern marking law reflects some innovations in terms of "marking" itself. The' modern market' is in the process of inventing new products that have a typical smell, special touch and uniqueness of sound to offer the' modern customers ' more' sensory' consumer products. While these new trademarks have still not been widely accepted in every jurisdiction, the use of these brands in contemporary markets is common. Modern times are the result of certain legislative amendments or judicial interpretations, new forms of sensory trademarks have become accepted globally as intellectual property. Non-traditional trademarks continue to be a practice in the modem market and the case-law is evolving in this respect. Studies show, however, that the request for non-traditional marks to be registered in international trade from the owners is increasing. On the contrary, in examination, registration and enforcement of these marks, there are no uniform standards worldwide. Against this background, this paper contains a brief history, by various case studies, on registration and enforcement of non-traditional marks, the reason for their protection under legal regimes, prevalent in the US, European Union (EU) and India.
  • Reply Brief for the Petitioners

    Reply Brief for the Petitioners

    No. 19-46 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. BOOKING.COM B.V. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Goodyear remains good law and resolves the question presented here .................................................. 2 B. Sound trademark policy supports the conclusion that adding a top-level domain to a generic term does not create a protectable mark ............................. 14 C. Respondent’s survey evidence does not provide a sound basis for treating BOOKING.COM as a registrable trademark ................................................... 20 Appendix — Table of rejected marks ..................................... 1a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1986) ....................................................................... 12 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) ............................................ 5, 7, 22 Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 616 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................. 3, 4, 15, 16 Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991)................................................................ 5 Blinded Veterans Ass’n v. Blinded Am. Veterans Found., 872 F.2d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ............................ 16 CyberFinancial.Net Inc., In re, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1789 (T.T.A.B. 2002) ...................................................................... 3 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ................................................................. 5 Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., In re, 240 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
  • Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial

    Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial

    Strategic Partnership and Cooperation between the EU and China on Intellectual Property Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial State Administration for Industry and Trademark Commerce of the People’s Republic of China Office Trademark Review and Adjudication Board December of 2016 1 IP Key is co-financed by the European Union and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). IP Key Beijing Office, Room 2080, Sunflower Tower No. 37, Maizidian West Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CHINA 100125 Email: [email protected], [t] +86 10 8527 5705, [f] +86 10 8527 5708 Strategic Partnership and Cooperation between the EU and China on Intellectual Property IMPORTANT The Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board have revised the Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial on basis of widely soliciting opinions from all sources and learning from the foreign examination standards and in combination with years of trademark examination and trial practices, for the purpose of accommodating to the third amendment to the Trademark Law and further regulating and well completing the work concerning trademark examination and trial. This amendment added the sound trademark examination standards, the standards for application of Examination Opinions in the examination practices, the standards for application of Paragraph 4, Article 19 of the Trademark Law, the standards for application of Article 50 of the Trademark Law, the trial standards of Paragraph 2, Article 15 of the Trademark Law, and the standards for determination of stakeholders, and made corresponding revision to the examination standards based on the partial revision to Article 10 of the Trademark Law, and deleted and added some examination cases to enrich and improve the content of the standards for trademark examination and trial.
  • Democracy in the Age of Pandemic – Fair Vote UK Report June 2020

    Democracy in the Age of Pandemic – Fair Vote UK Report June 2020

    Democracy in the Age of Pandemic How to Safeguard Elections & Ensure Government Continuity APPENDICES fairvote.uk Published June 2020 Appendix 1 - 86 1 Written Evidence, Responses to Online Questionnaire During the preparation of this report, Fair Vote UK conducted a call for written evidence through an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was open to all members of the public. This document contains the unedited responses from that survey. The names and organisations for each entry have been included in the interest of transparency. The text of the questionnaire is found below. It indicates which question each response corresponds to. Name Organisation (if applicable) Question 1: What weaknesses in democratic processes has Covid-19 highlighted? Question 2: Are you aware of any good articles/publications/studies on this subject? Or of any countries/regions that have put in place mediating practices that insulate it from the social distancing effects of Covid-19? Question 3: Do you have any ideas on how to address democratic shortcomings exposed by the impact of Covid-19? Appendix 1 - 86 2 Appendix 1 Name S. Holledge Organisation Question 1 Techno-phobia? Question 2 Estonia's e-society Question 3 Use technology and don't be frightened by it 2 Appendix 1 - 86 3 Appendix 2 Name S. Page Organisation Yes for EU (Scotland) Question 1 The Westminster Parliament is not fit for purpose Question 2 Scottish Parliament Question 3 Use the internet and electronic voting 3 Appendix 1 - 86 4 Appendix 3 Name J. Sanders Organisation emergency legislation without scrutiny removing civil liberties railroading powers through for example changes to mental health act that impact on individual rights (A) Question 1 I live in Wales, and commend Mark Drakeford for his quick response to the crisis by enabling the Assembly to continue to meet and debate online Question 2 no, not until you asked.
  • Introduction of the Madrid Protocol

    Introduction of the Madrid Protocol

    Introduction of the Madrid Protocol Japan Patent Office Asia - Pacific Industrial Property Center, Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation ©2016 Collaborator: Junko Saito Patent Attorney Ishida & Associates Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1 Outline of the Madrid System ............................................................................................. 2 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background of the Madrid System ...................................................................................... 3 1.3 Madrid Agreement .............................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Madrid Protocol .................................................................................................................. 6 1.5 Differences with the Madrid Agreement ............................................................................. 7 1.6 Member Countries of the Madrid Protocol ......................................................................... 8 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Madrid Protocol...................................................... 10 2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages for Users ......................................................................... 10 2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages for Office
  • Shapes, Sounds and Smells Shapes, Sounds And

    Shapes, Sounds and Smells Shapes, Sounds And

    Building trademark expertise since 1986 NOVEMBER 2009| Issue 222 | Shapes, sounds and smells Non-traditional trademarks explored Nokia v HMRC Counterfeit transhipment case Chinese challenge Protecting brand names Online infringement Smart enforcement strategies www.ipworld.com K US: NON-TRADITIONAL TRADEMARKS Building trademark expertise since 1986 United States: Shape, sound and smell marks Lisa Martens and Alex Garcia explore levels of protection afforded to shape, sound and smell trademarks in the US he marketing industry has always Pepsi then answered its own question in had a strong relationship with subsequent advertisements with “Pepsi Has T trademark law. This profession, the Swirl!” comprised of highly creative individuals, is Pepsi applied for trade dress registration responsible for developing some of the most for the shape and grooved appearance of its popular slogans, catch phrases and brand new soda bottle. The Trademark Trial and names of all time. Without their ingenuity, Appeal Board (Board) allowed the campaigns such as JUST DO IT (Nike) and registration of the new bottle, but the Board GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO excluded the registration from the Principal WAIT (Guinness) would not exist. Register, explaining instead that the proper However, advertising and marketing location for this new registration was the campaigns are not restricted to words or Supplemental Register. phrases. Rather, these professionals have a The evolution of trade dress continued to long history of utilising all of the human progress and eventually the Supreme Court senses to attract and retain consumer issued an opinion in Two Pesos, Inc. v Taco AUTHORS attention. From catchy musical tunes to Cabana, recognising that trade dress is Lisa Martens is a principal in the San distinctive three-dimensional designs, capable of inherent distinctiveness.2 Diego office of Fish & Richardson PC.
  • VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment

    VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment

    JIPEL NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 Statement of Purpose Consistent with its unique development, The New York University Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law (JIPEL) is a nonpartisan periodical specializing in the analysis of timely and cutting-edge topics in the world of intellectual property and entertainment law. As NYU’s first online-only journal, JIPEL also provides an opportunity for discourse through comments from all of its readers. There are no subscriptions, or subscription fees; in keeping with the open-access and free discourse goals of the students responsible for JIPEL’s existence, the content is available for free to anyone interested in intellectual property and entertainment law. i Cite as N.Y.U. J. INTELL. PROP. & ENT. L. The New York University Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law is published two times per year at the New York University School of Law, 139 MacDougal Street, New York, New York, 10012. In keeping with the Journal’s open access and free discourse goals subscriptions are free of charge and can be accessed via www.jipel.law.nyu.edu. Inquiries may be made via telephone (212-998-6101) or electronic mail ([email protected]). The Journal invites authors to submit pieces for publication consideration. Footnotes and citations should follow the rules set forth in the latest edition of The Bluebook A Uniform System of Citation. All pieces submitted become the property of the Journal. We review submissions through ExpressO Bepress (http://law.bepress.com/ expresso/) and through electronic mail ([email protected]).
  • “Generic.Com” Trademarks May Be Registered If Consumers Do Not Perceive Them As Generic

    “Generic.Com” Trademarks May Be Registered If Consumers Do Not Perceive Them As Generic

    Latham & Watkins Intellectual Property Litigation Practice July 28, 2020 | Number 2782 Supreme Court: “Generic.com” Trademarks May Be Registered if Consumers Do Not Perceive Them as Generic The decision expands the availability of trademark protection for domain names and limits the number of terms deemed unprotectable because they are generic. Key Points: • The addition of the .com top-level domain to an otherwise generic term can transform the term into a potentially registrable trademark. • Consumer surveys will become even more essential in trademark litigation, as well as in the registration process. According to the US Supreme Court’s June 30, 2020, decision, a brand name can serve as a trademark only if the mark is capable of identifying a particular source of the good or service in question. Consequently, a generic term (e.g., book, computer) cannot qualify as a trademark because it is associated in the consuming public’s mind with an entire class of products or services.1 In U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com, the Supreme Court clarified the contours of this long-standing doctrine in trademark law by reaffirming the Lanham Act’s bedrock principle — whether a term is generic depends on its meaning to consumers.2 In doing so, the Supreme Court rejected a nearly per se rule that would have rendered “generic.com” terms ineligible for trademark registration.3 Background Booking.com is a digital travel company that provides hotel reservations and other services under the brand “Booking.com,” which is also the domain name
  • Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2014 Revision)[Effective] 中华人民共和国商标法实施条例(2014 修订) [现行有效]

    Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2014 Revision)[Effective] 中华人民共和国商标法实施条例(2014 修订) [现行有效]

    Please note: This translation is provided by www.lawinfochina.com with exclusive copyright and can not be reproduced for commercial use. Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2014 Revision)[Effective] 中华人民共和国商标法实施条例(2014 修订) [现行有效] Issuing authority: State Council Document Number: Order No. 651 of the State Council Date issued: 04-29-2014 Level of Authority: Administrative Regulations Area of law: Trademark,Trademark Order of the State Council of the People's Republic of China (No. 651) The Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, as revised, is hereby issued, and shall come into force on May 1, 2014. Premier: Li Keqiang April 29, 2014 Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Issued by Order No. 358 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China on August 3, 2002, and revised by Order No. 651 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China on April 29, 2014) Chapter I General Provisions Article 1 This Regulation is developed in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “ Trademark Law ”). Article 2 The provisions of this Regulation governing goods trademarks shall also apply to service trademarks. Article 3 To request well-known trademark protection under Article 13 of the Trademark Law , a trademark holder shall submit evidential materials proving that the trademark is a well-known trademark. As needed for trying or handling the case, the Trademark Office and the Trademark Appeal Board shall, based on the evidential materials submitted by the party, determine whether the trademark is a well-known trademark in accordance with Article 14 of the Trademark Law .
  • Article Title

    Article Title

    International In-house Counsel Journal Vol. 7, No. 25, Autumn 2013, 1 I Can Name that Brand in Three Notes: Non-Traditional Trademarks for Traditional Goods KATHRYN BELLEAU Assistant General Counsel - Intellectual Property and Procurement Legal, Pitney Bowes Inc., USA People are exposed to trademarks on a daily basis. Trademarks are a part of everyone’s everyday life. Trademarks are used on clothing, food, entertainment, cosmetics, etc. Unlike other aspects of law, there is no minimum educational requirement or level of sophistication to understand and/or recognize what a trademark is and how it relates to the goods and/or services with which it is used. Kids can readily recognize a brand from a young age, e.g., FISHER-PRICE toys. Teens recognize the well-known brands, e.g., COKE for soft drinks and NIKE for sports shoes. Along with these words that are used as trademarks, brand owners also use stylized lettering or designs. COCA-COLA uses stylized lettering for their soft drinks and Nike utilizes a Swoosh design on its sports shoes. These designs are also well recognized as trademarks by the general public. What people are less familiar with are the non-traditional marks that companies use to distinguish their goods and/or services from those of their competitors. One of the most common is the use of color. Other non-traditional types would be the non-functional shape of the goods or packaging for the goods; sound, usually in the form of musical notes; texture, the feel of a product or label therefor; finally, smell. All of these non- traditional trademarks need to be handled in a particular manner in order to ensure that rights are established and, once perfected, are not lost by misuse.