DOCSLIB.ORG

Trademark Protection • Distinctive • Not Disqualified • Used in Commerce

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 Trademarks Service Marks Certification Collective Marks Geographic • Words, phrases, logos . Marks Indications • 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 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 2 Trademarks, Spring 2016 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. http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2012/Best-Global-Brands-2012-Brand-View.aspx Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 3 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 4 Trademarks, Spring 2016 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 5 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 6 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) Trademark continuum of distinctiveness for word marks Generic DescriptiveSuggestive Arbitrary / Fanciful / Coined • Safari mark aspirin • 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 “Brilliant” for “Brilliant” for “Brilliant” for • Suggestive or descriptive for boots / shoes diamonds shoe polish canned apple • But, “incontestable” sauce Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 7 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 8 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Descriptive? Genericness character function feature quality ingredient nature purpose use characteristics dimensions, color, odor. Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 9 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 10 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Generic‐ness 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 11 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 12 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Zatarain’s Zatarain’s • Fish‐Fri • Chick‐Fri • Suggestive or generic – either side of descriptiveness • Classification? • Dictionary ‐ ordinary significance and meaning of the words • Imagination test • Secondary meaning? • 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 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 14 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc. 694 F.3d 723, 729‐730 (6th Cir. 2012) “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 15 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 16 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Certification Marks Collective Marks • The term ''certification mark'' means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination • The term ''collective mark'' means a trademark or service mark – thereof – • (1) used by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization, or • (1) used by a person other than its owner, or • (2) which such cooperative, association, or other collective group or organization has a bona fide intention to use • (2) which its owner has a bona fide intention to permit a person other than the owner to use in in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter, commerce and files an application 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 • to certify • regional or other origin, • Two possible functions of the collective mark with respect to the association, union, cooperative, fraternal • material, organization or other organized collective group using the mark: • mode of manufacture, • As a mark adopted for use only by its members, who in turn use the mark to identify goods or services – mostly • quality, treated as ordinary trademarks/service marks • accuracy, • Solely to identify the person displaying a mark as a member of the collective group – a membership mark • 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 • The term ''mark'' includes any trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 • Must be open to any producer that meets the standards. Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 17 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 18 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Classifying other types of marks Lanham Act – Important Sections • Surnames • 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 • Acronyms • Section 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114: Infringement of registered marks • Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a): Infringement of unregistered marks • Domain names • Section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c): Dilution of marks (registered or unregistered) • Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127: Definitions • Foreign Equivalents Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 19 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 20 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Acquired Distinctiveness of Source Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. (5th Cir. 1983) • Rough synonyms • Approaches to determining whether a mark is descriptive (rather than Imagine a situation in which Company David, after a suggestive/arbitrary): • Secondary meaning great deal of market research, adopts an especially • Trademark meaning good descriptive mark and initiates a small‐scale • Dictionary definition launch of the descriptive mark in the marketplace. • Imagination test • Acquired distinctiveness Company Goliath then becomes aware of Company • Acquired trademark meaning David’s mark, adopts the mark as its own, and • Competitive need immediately spends enormous resources building up • Third‐party uses secondary meaning in the mark, so that when consumers see the mark, they think of Company • See also TMEP 1209.03 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 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 22 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Frosty Treats Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America (8th Cir. 2005) Cartier, Inc. v. Four Star Jewelry Creations, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2004) • Alleged infringement is use in a video • Discussion of survey evidence as to whether the designs had acquired game distinctiveness • 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 Greg R. Vetter • www.gregvetter.org 24 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Trademarks, Spring 2016 Summary of Distinctiveness Doctrine So Far Genericness . • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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? .
  • Special 301 Trademark Working Group Special 301 Submission for 2014

    Special 301 Trademark Working Group Special 301 Submission for 2014

    Special 301 Trademark Working Group Special 301 Submission For 2014 Background of the Trademark Working Group: The Special 301 Trademark Working Group (Trademark Working Group) is an ad hoc informal collaborative of companies and other organizations that have experienced challenges in registering, maintaining and protecting their trademarks abroad. The Trademark Working Group includes 21 participant companies and organizations. Participants in the Trademark Working Group include nine Fortune 500 companies or their subsidiaries. The other participants are well-known companies or organizations whose trademarks would be readily recognized by relevant consumers in the U.S. and abroad. Participants span a wide variety of industries, from technology products to hospitality services. The Trademark Working Group also includes companies in the wearing apparel, food products, financial services, entertainment and home products sectors, among others. Purpose of Trademark Working Group's Special 301 Submission: The Trademark Working Group's primary purpose in making this submission is the improvement of trademark law and practice through education, technical support, diplomacy and, only as a last resort, trade policy. Topics of Submission and Their Importance to U.S. Trademark Owners: 1. Trademark Issue: Nations that are not members of the Paris Convention or GATT-TRIPS The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) (original text 1883) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)(1994) establish minimum standards for intellectual property protection among nations and across trading systems. Member countries of these treaties allow for more streamlined and less costly means to protect the rights of trademark owners.
  • Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore

    Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore

    Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore IP Newsletter We are delighted to share with you the latest edition of our May 2015 Intellectual Property newsletter covering the latest developments in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We trust you will find this newsletter useful. If you would like any further information, please contact the team in your jurisdiction. Best regards, Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow (Singapore) Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners (Indonesia) In This Issue Wong & Partners (Malaysia) Recent Developments In: Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Indonesia Latest News Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of For more information, please Operational License and Evaluation of Collecting contact: Societies Kuala Lumpur Chew Kherk Ying Pursuant to the enactment of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Partner +60 3 2298 7933 Copyright ("Copyright Law"), the Ministry of Law and Human [email protected] Rights ("MOLHR") has issued Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of Operational Singapore License and Evaluation of Collecting Management Society Andy Leck Managing Principal, ("Regulation No. 29"). Tel: +65 6434 2525 [email protected] The Copyright Law urges authors, copyright holders and Jakarta performers to be members of collecting societies in order to Daru Lukiantono manage and collect royalties from the commercial use of their Partner copyright and neighboring rights from the public. The Tel: +62 21 2960 8588 [email protected] Copyright Law indicates that collecting societies should be non-profit in nature and obtain operational licenses from the MOLHR by fulfilling certain requirements.
  • Page 1 Chapter 4 Similarity of the Marks § 4:1 Similarity in Context § 4

    Page 1 Chapter 4 Similarity of the Marks § 4:1 Similarity in Context § 4

    Chapter 4 Similarity of the Marks § 4:1 Similarity in Context § 4:2 Degree of Similarity § 4:3 The Three-Part Test: Sound, Meaning, Appearance § 4:3.1 Commercial Impression § 4:3.2 Sound § 4:3.3 Meaning [A] Word Versus Picture [B] Foreign Word Versus English Word 10/04/17 [C] Foreign Word Versus Foreign Word § 4:3.4 Appearance [A] Design Versus Design [B] Letters Versus Letters [C] Different Word/Similar Design § 4:4 Consider the Marks As Would the Relevant Public § 4:5 Consider the Marks Singly § 4:6 Weigh Similarities More Heavily than Differences § 4:7 Compare the Marks in Their Entireties § 4:8 Consider the Marks in Their Settings § 4:9 Give Dominant Portions of Composite Marks Greater Weight § 4:9.1 Family Features § 4:9.2 Words/Designs Proofs § 4:9.3 Letters/Designs § 4:9.4 Effect of Registration Disclaimers § 4:10 Marks Having Portions in Common § 4:10.1 One Mark Incorporating Another § 4:10.2 Common Portion Comparatively Strong, Dominant § 4:10.3 Common Portion Weak, Recessive § 4:10.4 Common Portion Generic or Functional § 4:10.5 Given Name/Surname 2nd § 4:10.6 Marks Suggesting an Association § 4:10.7 Marks with Source Modifiers § 4:10.8 Marks with Geographic Modifiers (Kirkpatrick, Rel. #9, 10/17) 4–1 § 4:1 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION § 4:11 Reversal of Elements § 4:12 The Familiar Versus the Unfamiliar § 4:13 Parody § 4:14 Combining Complainant’s Marks § 4:1 Similarity in Context Similarity of the marks is an analytical factor in every court.1 (See section 2:4.) If this is the factor “without which the others have no probative value,”2 then it is “the most important consideration, for it is in [the] similarity [of the marks] that the roots of the confusion lie.”3 1.
  • Trademark and Trade Dress

    Trademark and Trade Dress

    Trademark and Trade Dress by Linda Joy Kattwinkel 1 Trademark and trade dress What is a trademark? A trademark is any name, phrase or symbol that functions as a brand, that is, it tells the public that there is a particular source or manufacturer for products or services. The scope of what can be a trademark is very broad—words, images, sounds and colors can all function as trademarks. Even packaging and promotional concepts for products or services can be protected as “trade dress,” which is another form of trademark rights (see below). What are the legal requirements for trademark protection? To legally qualify as a trademark, the material must be “distinctive.” Distinctive means consumers recognize the mark as a designation of source, rather than just a phrase or decoration. Examples of distinctive word marks include Apple for computers and Xerox for copier machines. Logos can also be trademarks, whether or not they include words. For example, Apple’s graphic apple design is a trademark for the technology company, the Nike swoosh is a trademark for Nike, the purple bell image is a trademark for Taco Bell. These are known as “design marks.” Typographical logos, comprised of words in a particular font or unique letter forms, are known as “stylized marks.” Slogans can also function as trademarks, such as Nike’s “Just Do It” or the California Milk Processor Board’s popular slogan “Got Milk?” In some cases, colors or sounds can also be legally recognized as trademarks, if consumers perceive them as indicating one particular company. For example, the “Intel Inside” jingle functions as a trademark for Intel, and the specific pink color of insulation functions as a trademark for Owens Corning.
  • (Dys)Functionality Mark Mckenna Notre Dame Law School, Markmckenna@Nd.Edu

    (Dys)Functionality Mark Mckenna Notre Dame Law School, [email protected]

    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2012 (Dys)Functionality Mark McKenna Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark McKenna, (Dys)Functionality, 48 Hous. L. Rev. 823 (2011-2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/623 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE (DYS)FUNCTIONALITY Mark P. McKenna* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...................................823 II. MECHANICAL FUNCTIONALITY AND THE COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE .................................... ...... 824 A. Pre-TrafFix Decisions and the Need to Copy ................ 825 B. TrafFix and the Right to Copy ......... ......... 827 1. Essentialityand Alternative Designs.... ..... 832 2. Essentialityvs. Arbitrary Flourish...... ...... 832 3. Right to Copy vs. Need to Copy, Still.....................833 C. The IntractableBaseline Problem.......... ...... 836 III. AESTHETIC FUNCTIONALITY ............ ............... 843 A. Design Patents and the Competitive Landscape...........843 B. Aesthetic Featuresand Competitive Need.... ..... 848 C. Functional Use and the Duality Problem..... ..... 854 IV. CONCLUSION ................................. ........ 858 I. INTRODUCTION The functionality doctrine serves a unique role in trademark law: unlike virtually every other doctrine, functionality can * Professor, Notre Dame Law School. Thanks to Stacey Dogan for helpful discussions of the ideas in this Article, and to Mark Lemley and the participants at the University of Houston Law Center's Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law Summer Symposium in Santa Fe for their helpful feedback on an earlier draft.
  • Are We Running out of Trademarks? an Empirical Study of Trademark Depletion and Congestion

    Are We Running out of Trademarks? an Empirical Study of Trademark Depletion and Congestion

    VOLUME 131 FEBRUARY 2018 NUMBER 4 © 2018 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES ARE WE RUNNING OUT OF TRADEMARKS? AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TRADEMARK DEPLETION AND CONGESTION Barton Beebe & Jeanne C. Fromer CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 948 I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 954 A. The Trademark Registration Process .............................................................................. 955 1. The Distinctiveness Requirement .............................................................................. 957 2. Classification of Goods and Services ........................................................................ 958 3. The Bar to the Registration of Marks Confusingly Similar to Already-Registered Marks ...................................................................................... 960 4. The Protection of Unregistered Marks ..................................................................... 961 B. The Finite Universe of “Good” Trademarks .................................................................. 962 1. The Conventional Wisdom Clarified ......................................................................... 962 2. The Characteristics of Good Trademarks.................................................................. 964 C. Applicants’ Mark Selection .............................................................................................
  • Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Stephen R

    Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Stephen R

    American University Law Review Volume 49 | Issue 6 Article 4 2000 Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Stephen R. Baird Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Baird, Stephen R. (2000) "Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ," American University Law Review: Vol. 49: Iss. 6, Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol49/iss6/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Keywords Trademark, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol49/iss6/4 BAIRDJCI.DOC 6/19/2001 10:51 AM AREA SUMMARIES REVIEW OF THE 1999 TRADEMARK DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT * STEPHEN R. BAIRD TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...................................................................................1322 I. The Federal Circuit Addresses Procedural Issues ................1323 A. Standard of Review........................................................1324 B. Standing to Oppose an “Immoral” or “Scandalous” Mark ..............................................................................1326 C.