DOCSLIB.ORG

The Squared Circle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Squared Circle The Squared Circle: Fitting Trademark Law Principles into ICANN’s Rights Protection Mechanisms GREG SHATAN MOSES & SINGER LLP APRIL 24, 2019 2 “It has become apparent to all that a considerable amount of tension has unwittingly been created between, on the one hand, addresses on the Internet in a human-friendly form which carry the power of connotation and identification and, on the other hand, the recognized rights of identification in the real world….” Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999 The Circle and the Square 3 Real World ICANN World • The intellectual property rights system is publicly • The DNS is largely administered on a territorial privately administered basis and gives rise to rights and gives rise to that are exercisable only registrations that result within the territory[ies] in a global presence, concerned. accessible from anywhere in the world. “In this respect, the intersection of the DNS and the intellectual property system is but one example of a larger phenomenon – the intersection of a global medium in which traffic circulates without cognizance of borders with historical, territorially based systems that emanate from the sovereign authority of the territory.” WIPO Final Report Fitting the Circle to the Square: 4 A Question of Balance • On the one hand, trademark rights should not be expanded, or new rights created • On the other hand, trademark rights should not be diminished, nor should rights be taken away • In addition, trademark rights need to be balanced against other rights, such as freedom of expression, fair use and other legitimate uses of the “string” Real World vs. ICANN World 5 Contours of the Trademark Right 6 7 Confusing Similarity vs. Exact Match Real World ICANN World • Protection covers all confusingly • Generally, protection covers exact similar words and phrases, not matches only • In UDRP/URS, this extends to exact just “exact match” matches plus generic words (e.g., acme + furniture), but the exact match of the • Scope may vary depending on string itself varies only due to strength of plaintiff mark, among typosquatting, homoglyphs, etc. other things • In other contexts (e.g., Sunrise or Trademark Claims), only the exact match is covered • “Previously abused strings” are minor exception • Significantly narrower than in the “real world” 8 Goods and Services Limitation Real World ICANN World • Protection covers related goods • Protection is not limited by and services • Breadth may vary depending on goods and services strength of plaintiff mark, among • Relatedness of goods and other things services, or reference to • May include natural areas of expansion trademark owner’s goods and • International Class not particularly services, is a strong factor in relevant (some would say “wholly looking for “use in bad faith” in irrelevant”) UDRP. • The more similar the marks, the less similar the goods and services need to be Territory 9 Real World ICANN World • Rights are limited by Territory • Rights are not limited by • Breadth may vary depending on strength of plaintiff mark, among other things Territory • May include natural areas of expansion • Trademark owner and third party • International Class not particularly can be anywhere relevant (some would say “wholly irrelevant”) • The more similar the marks, the less similar the goods and services need to be • Many trademarks are registered in multiple territories. Seniority 10 Real World ICANN World • Seniority is strength, and a very • Seniority is (largely) irrelevant • All legitimate trademark users are on a significant facet of trademark level playing field without regard to protection seniority • • No advantage in Sunrise Seniority is often dispositive in a • In UDRP, respondent must have “no rights dispute with a Junior User or legitimate interest” in the domain and must have registered and used in “bad faith” • Lack of seniority can be damaging to the trademark owner in one instance – if a domain registration predates a UDRP complainant’s rights, the complainant can be found to have engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) A Holistic View: The Big Trade-Off 11 REAL WORLD ICANN WORLD TERMS • Confusingly Similar • Only Exact Match is COVERED Terms are covered covered • BROADER THAN • NARROWER THAN ICANN WORLD REAL WORLD GOODS • Protection covers • Protection is not AND SERVICES only “related” goods limited by goods and COVERED and services services • Relatedness requires • But relatedness may a substantive analysis factor into “bad faith” and determination analysis in UDRP • NARROWER THAN • BROADER THAN REAL ICANN WORLD WORLD A Holistic View: The Big Trade-Off 12 REAL WORLD ICANN WORLD TERMS Confusingly Exact Match • The twin factors of “Terms COVERED Similar Covered” and “Goods and Services Covered” together define the GOODS Related No Goods and AND “penumbra” of the plaintiff mark. SERVICES Goods and Services COVERED Services Limitation • The “Real World” and “ICANN World” pairs are both balanced in an analogous fashion, even though the pairs are not identical. • A change to only one side of the ICANN World pair (or the Real World pair) would upset the balance. • Therefore, if one side of the ICANN World pair is changed to be “narrower,” the other side must be changed to be “broader” to maintain that balance. A Holistic View: Other Factors 13 REAL WORLD ICANN WORLD TERRITORY • Rights are limited • Rights are not limited by Territory by Territory • NARROWER THAN • BROADER THAN REAL ICANN WORLD WORLD SENIORITY • Seniority is very • Seniority is (largely) significant irrelevant between • BROADER THAN trademark users, and ICANN WORLD may help or hurt in UDRP/URS matters • NARROWER THAN ICANN WORLD A Holistic View: Other Factors 14 REAL WORLD ICANN WORLD TERRITORY • Rights • Rights not • Territory and Seniority define the limited by limited by strength and “reach” of the plaintiff Territory Territory mark. Again the pairs are balanced in an analogous, but not identical, fashion. SENIORITY • Seniority is • Seniority is • While not as robust a pairing as very (largely) Terms/Goods & Services, if change significant irrelevant is considered on one side of the pair, an equal but opposite change should be considered on the other side of the Territory/Seniority pair. • In addition, these two pairs need to be considered together and in the context of the various ICANN RPMs and their relationship to “Real World” dispute resolution mechanisms, discussed on the following slides. • Overall, this is a system of interlocking parts, and maintaining balance is a key when considering any changes to ICANN’s RPMs. Dispute Resolution 15 Dispute Resolution 16 Real World ICANN World • Target: infringers • Target: cybersquatters • “Confusing similarity” is much more • Trademark owner must show narrowly construed than in that the defendant is using a trademark infringement cases: “While each case is judged on its confusingly similar mark in such own merits, in cases where a a way that it creates a likelihood domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where of confusion, mistake, and/or at least a dominant feature of the deception with the consuming relevant mark is recognizable in the public. domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” (WIPO Overview 3.0) Dispute Resolution 17 Real World ICANN World • “Likelihood of confusion” factors • UDRP and URS use a 3-prong test commonly include : 1. Similarity or dissimilarity of the marks • Domain must be identical or in their entireties as to sight, sound, confusingly similar to a trademark meaning and commercial impression. or service mark in which the 2. Relatedness of parties’ goods and services. complainant has rights 3. Similarity or dissimilarity of • The domain owner has no rights or established, likely-to-continue trade legitimate interest in respect of the channels. domain name; and 4. Purchasing conditions, i.e., impulse buyer vs. sophisticated buyer. • The domain name has been 5. Number and nature of similar marks registered and is being used in bad in use on similar goods and services faith. Dispute Resolution 18 Real World ICANN World • Defendant could have some • UDRP and URS use a 3-prong test “rights or legitimate interest” in • Domain must be identical or their mark, but for the plaintiff’s confusingly similar to a trademark senior/superior rights. or service mark in which the complainant has rights • “Bad faith” is not a requirement in • The domain owner has no rights or an infringement case. It is legitimate interest in respect of the required in ACPA cases, but ACPA domain name; and only requires bad faith use or • The domain name has been registration. registered and is being used in bad faith. Dispute Resolution 19 Real World ICANN World • Civil standard of proof is “preponderance • UDRP standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence.” of the evidence” • Remedies may include injunctive relief, • But, URS standard of proof is heightened transfer or cancellation of the trademark, “clear and convincing evidence” money damages, destruction of infringing goods or other corrective action. • Remedy: Transfer of the domain (UDRP) or Attorneys fees may be awarded to the suspension (URS). No money damages or prevailing party in an “exceptional case.” attorneys fees are available. • Default will be awarded to plaintiff unless • Panel will substantively review case in the their papers are facially deficient. event of default. • Appeals give significant deference to trial • “Appeals” are really de novo cases, with court, especially on findings of fact. no deference to the UDRP panel’s decision. • Costs can be very significant. • Costs are quite low Other Rights Protection Mechanisms 20 Real World ICANN World • No equivalent. Sunrise was designed to • Sunrise: Trademark owners registered in the get ahead of cybersquatters. TMCH may acquire domains for a limited time in advance of general availability. • No equivalent. Claims was designed to inform applicants of potential issues. • Trademark Claims: Notice sent to potential applicant and to trademark owner registered • No equivalent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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? .
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Articles 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 .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    BORROWING FROM OUR COMMON LAW COUSINS: AMERICAN AND BRITISH INFLUENCES ON THE MERGER OF CANADIAN TRADEMARK AND INTERNET DOMAIN NAME LAWS Vincent-Joël Proulx∗ I. INTRODUCTION This article explores the intersection of web-based economic activity under Internet domain names and the application of traditional Canadian trademark law, with particular emphasis on U.S. and U.K. influences in Canadian law. In pursuing this objective, the article advocates an inherent adaptability of the scheme of trademark law to online transactions. As a corollary, the paper argues that extant trademark law principles are sufficiently circumscribed and compatible with the Internet in order to adequately govern cyberspace. Aside from a few legislative and/or judicial clarifications, Canadian legislators should not feel compelled to devise a whole new set of rules to regulate online business. In fact, several courts, both in Canada and in other common law jurisdictions, have acknowledged the compatibility between existing intellectual property rules and web-based commercial operations.1 More generally, “courts are increasingly using the cyberspace as place metaphor to justify application of traditional laws governing real property to this new medium,”2 while * LL.L., LL.B., University of Ottawa; LL.M. (International Legal Studies), New York University; Doctoral Candidate, McGill University Institute of Comparative Law. I acknowledge with appreciation the financial support provided by McGill University through the McGill Graduate Studies Fellowship, and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada through the Canadian Graduate Scholarship. A shorter French version of this article appears in Un Droit qui laisse sa marque (de commerce), même dans le cyberespace: peut-on transposer au web les règles terrestres de propriété intellectuelle? 16 LES CAHIERS DE PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE 767 (2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Language Trademarks in Japan: the Linguistic Challenge
    University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review Volume 1 Issue 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI YEARBOOK Article 13 OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VOLUME 1 1-1-1991 Foreign Language Trademarks in Japan: The Linguistic Challenge Rosalynn Frank Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Rosalynn Frank, Foreign Language Trademarks in Japan: The Linguistic Challenge, 1 U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 206 (1991) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol1/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRADEMARKS IN JAPAN: THE LINGUISTIC CHALLENGE ROSALYNN FRANK* SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION II. THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE III. JAPANESE TRADEMARK LAW A. THE BASICS B. LINGUISTIC SIMILARITY IV. USE OF A TRADEMARK V. EXAMPLE ANALYSIS VI. CAUTIONS VII. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION As international commerce increases, foreign businesses need to become familiar with the different laws under which they will deal and be held accountable.' The protection of intellectual property rights is one of the most important issues arising in the context of international transactions, particularly in the Japanese market, which is prone to copying and imitation.2 In essence, trademarks are significant because they identify the origin of goods.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark Basics
    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.
    [Show full text]