DOCSLIB.ORG

Trademarks Examination Manual Trademarks Examination Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trademarks Examination Manual Trademarks Examination Manual Trademarks Examination Manual Trademarks Examination Manual ............................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 12 1.1 General information ........................................................................................................................ 12 2 Examination of applications as to form ................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Pre-examination .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Request for expedited examination ................................................................................................. 12 2.3 Requirements for application – subsection 30(1) ........................................................................... 13 2.4 Contents of application – subsection 30(2) ..................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Identity of the applicant ........................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1.1 Individuals......................................................................................................................... 14 2.4.1.2 Partnerships ....................................................................................................................... 14 2.4.1.3 Associations ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.4.1.4 Joint ventures .................................................................................................................... 14 2.4.1.5 Corporations ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.4.1.6 Use of French or English form of corporate name ........................................................... 15 2.4.1.7 Correcting the identification of an applicant .................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Postal address of the applicant ................................................................................................. 15 2.4.3 Representation or description of the trademark ....................................................................... 16 2.4.3.1 Multiple views – paragraph 30(a) of the Regulations ....................................................... 16 2.4.3.2 Size of visual representation – paragraph 30(b) of the Regulations ................................. 16 2.4.3.3 Three-dimensional shape – paragraph 30(c) of the Regulations ...................................... 16 2.4.3.4 Visual representations in colour – paragraph 30(d) of the Regulations............................ 16 2.4.3.5 Visual representations in B&W – paragraph 30(e) of the Regulations ............................ 17 2.4.3.6 Sound recording – paragraph 30(f) of the Regulations ..................................................... 17 2.4.3.7 Clear and concise description – paragraph 30(g) of the Regulations ............................... 17 2.4.3.8 Colour description – paragraph 31(f) of the Regulations ................................................. 17 2.4.3.8.1 Name of the colour ..................................................................................................... 17 2.4.3.8.2 Colour identification system ...................................................................................... 17 2.4.3.8.3 Principal parts ............................................................................................................ 18 2.4.3.8.4 Gradations .................................................................................................................. 18 2.4.4 Statements of trademark type................................................................................................... 18 2.4.5 Ordinary commercial terms for specific goods or services – paragraph 30(2)(a) of the Act and section 29 of the Regulations ............................................................................................................ 19 2.4.5.1 Ordinary commercial terms .............................................................................................. 20 2.4.5.2 Specific goods or services ................................................................................................. 20 2.4.5.3 Context of the goods and services .................................................................................... 21 2.4.5.4 “and the like”, “and similar goods”, “including”, “related to”, “related services”, “etc.”, and “featuring” .............................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.5.5 “namely”, “consisting of” or “specifically” ...................................................................... 22 2.4.5.6 “in the nature of”, “such as”, “comprising”, “containing”, “in particular” or “particularly” ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.4.5.7 “accessories”, “equipment”, “apparatus”, “systems” and “products” .............................. 22 2.4.5.8 Parts and fittings ............................................................................................................... 23 2.4.5.9 Devices .............................................................................................................................. 23 2.4.5.10 Computer software and computer programs ................................................................... 23 2.4.5.11 Discs and other blank or pre-recorded media ................................................................. 24 2.4.5.12 Pharmaceutical, veterinary, botanical, nutraceutical, homeopathic, medicinal and medicated preparations, remedies, supplements, extracts, functional foods and enhanced water 24 2.4.5.13 Intangibles ....................................................................................................................... 25 2.4.5.14 Advertising, promotion and marketing – benefit to a third party ................................... 25 2.4.5.15 Services related to the electronic transmission of data ................................................... 25 2.4.5.16 Telecommunication-related services .............................................................................. 26 2.4.6 Signature of applicant .............................................................................................................. 26 2.4.7 Nice Classification – Subsection 30(3) of the Trademarks Act ............................................... 26 2.4.7.1 Versions and editions ........................................................................................................ 27 2.4.7.1.1 Effect of new edition on applications ........................................................................ 27 2.4.7.1.2 Edition applicable to amendments to group the goods or services of registrations ... 27 2.4.7.2 Grouping goods and services according to the Nice Classification .................................. 27 2.4.7.2.1 Material composition ................................................................................................. 28 2.4.7.2.2 Reference to other classes .......................................................................................... 29 2.4.7.2.3 Class and context ....................................................................................................... 29 2.4.7.2.4 Kits, gift baskets and goods sold as a unit ................................................................. 29 2.4.8 Priority – Section 34 of the Trademarks Act ........................................................................... 30 2.4.8.1 Application requirements .................................................................................................. 30 2.4.8.2 Withdrawing a priority request ......................................................................................... 31 2.4.8.3 Dies Non ........................................................................................................................... 31 2.4.8.4 Force Majeure ................................................................................................................... 32 2.4.9 Standard characters – Section 31 of the Trademarks Act ........................................................ 33 2.4.10 Non-traditional trademarks .................................................................................................... 33 2.4.10.1 Sound .............................................................................................................................. 34 2.4.10.2 Hologram ........................................................................................................................ 34 2.4.10.3 Moving image (motion) .................................................................................................. 35 2.4.10.4 Scent ................................................................................................................................ 35 2.4.10.5 Taste ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • (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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demise of the Functionality Doctrine in Design Patent Law
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\92-4\NDL403.txt unknown Seq: 1 2-MAY-17 14:35 THE DEMISE OF THE FUNCTIONALITY DOCTRINE IN DESIGN PATENT LAW Perry J. Saidman* INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1471 R I. LANGUAGE MATTERS ...................................... 1472 R II. FUNCTIONALITY AND INFRINGEMENT ........................ 1473 R A. Egyptian Goddess .................................... 1473 R 1. Markman Claim Construction..................... 1473 R 2. The New Test for Infringement .................. 1474 R B. Claim Construction, Scope & Functionality ............... 1475 R C. Recent Significant Caselaw.............................. 1477 R D. Industry Standard Utilitarian Features ................... 1479 R III. FUNCTIONALITY AND VALIDITY ............................. 1480 R A. Development of “Ornamental” and “Functional” ........... 1481 R B. The Alternative Designs Test ............................ 1483 R C. The Problem with the Alternative Designs Test ............. 1486 R CONCLUSION .................................................... 1490 R INTRODUCTION The so-called doctrine of functionality arises in both design patent valid- ity and infringement analyses. Broadly stated, the doctrine seeks to ensure that design patents do not monopolize that which should only be monopo- lized with utility patents.1 In general, a utility patent protects utilitarian con- cepts embodied in a product, while a design patent protects only the specific visual embodiment of such concepts, i.e., the product’s appearance.2 © 2017 Perry J. Saidman. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Article in any format at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review, and includes this provision in the copyright notice. * Principal, Saidman DesignLaw Group, LLC, a law firm in Silver Spring, Maryland, that specializes in legal issues involving designs and product configurations.
    [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]
  • Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement
    SAMUELSON_F&E ARTICLE (DO NOT DELETE) 1/31/2017 12:08 PM FUNCTIONALITY AND EXPRESSION IN COMPUTER PROGRAMS: REFINING THE TESTS FOR SOFTWARE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Pamela Samuelson* Abstract Courts have struggled for decades to develop a test for judging infringement claims in software copyright cases that distinguishes between program expression that copyright law protects and program functionality for which copyright protection is unavailable. The case law thus far has adopted four main approaches to judging copyright infringement claims in software cases. One, now mostly discredited, test would treat all structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of programs as protectable expression unless there is only one way to perform a program function. A second, now widely applied, three-step test calls for creation of a hierarchy of abstractions for an allegedly infringed program, filtration of unprotectable elements, and comparison of the protectable expression of the allegedly infringed program with the expression in the second program that is the basis of the infringement claim. A third approach has focused on whether the allegedly infringing elements are program processes or methods of operation that lie outside the scope of protection available from copyright law. A fourth approach has concentrated on whether the allegedly infringing elements of a program are instances in which ideas or functions have merged with program expression. This Article offers both praise and criticism of the approaches taken thus far to judging software copyright infringement, and it proposes an alternative unified test for infringement that is consistent with traditional principles of copyright law and that will promote healthy competition and ongoing innovation in the software industry.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks 25 a Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks
    A Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks 25 A Reflection About the Introduction of Non-Traditional Trademarks Roberto Carapeto 1. Introduction The present paper aims to analyze how some key jurisdictions have been adopting the protection of non-traditional trademarks. While doing that, it seeks to unfold the discussion about a comprehensive and universal definition of what mark/trademark is. Also, some consideration about how the adoption of non-traditional trademarks have been affeefing the harmonization of Trademark law around the world, aiming to conclude if there was a positive influence or not. For the current analysis the author choose to select jurisdictions with global influence, such as US and EU, historical influence, such as France and Germany, local influence, such as Argentina or India. The scope of what is considered a non-traditional trademark has yet to be defined conclusively. In this sense, for the purpose of the present article, the introduction of the protection for sound trademarks will be used as a definite landmark for the protection of nontraditional trademarks. 2. About Non-Traditional Trademarks The traditional range of trademarks have been limited to word, symbol or design, or a combination thereof. Even if there are some small differences from country to country, this scope is somewhat steady and the expansion of this scope has been being discussed for more than 100 years. Upon a difficulty in defining what is a non-traditional trademark, any trademark that does not fall within that traditional scope of “word, symbol or design, or a combination thereof” shall be considered as a non- traditional trademark.
    [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]
  • Court Holds Google's Sale of Trademarks As Keywords Does Not
    Intellectual Property August 24, 2010 Court Holds Google’s Sale of Trademarks as Keywords Does Not Create Likelihood of Confusion and is Not Trademark Infringement On August 3, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-00736-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Jul. 10, 2009) ruled on summary judgment that Google’s practice of selling Rosetta Stone’s trademarks as keyword triggers to third party advertisers for use in their Sponsored Link does not create a likelihood of confusion as to the source or origin of Rosetta Stone’s products, or otherwise violate Rosetta Stone’s trademark rights. The Court did not address whether these activities create a likelihood of confusion with respect to the source of the third party advertisers’ products, however. While a number of cases, such as Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009), have held that a search engine’s sale of a competitor’s trademark as a keyword to trigger advertisements is sufficient “use in commerce” to state a claim for trademark infringement, few courts have decided whether the use of keyword advertising creates a likelihood of confusion. For example, the District Court in Hearts on Fire Company, LLC v. Blue Nile, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D. Mass. 2009), held that the plaintiff sufficiently supported its claim of initial interest confusion, caused by the defendant’s use of a trademark as a trigger for its sponsored links, to defeat the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but the Court did not reach the issue of likelihood of confusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Trade Dress Does Not Belong on the Principal Register
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 8-2000 The Trade Dress Emperor's New Clothes: Why Trade Dress Does Not Belong on the Principal Register Glynn S. Lunney Jr Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Glynn S. Lunney Jr, The Trade Dress Emperor's New Clothes: Why Trade Dress Does Not Belong on the Principal Register, 51 Hastings L.J. 1131 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/552 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Trade Dress Emperor's New Clothes: Why Trade Dress Does Not Belong on the Principal Register by GLYNN S. LUNNEY, JR.* Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................... 1133 I. Congress's Decision To Exclude Trade Dress from the Principal Register ........................................................................ 1136 A. The Act's Plain Language Excludes Trade Dress ........... 1138 B. Congress Drafted the Act Specifically to Exclude Trade Dress ......................................................................... 1148 C. The Legislative History Regarding Trade Dress ............ 1150 D. The Contemporaneous
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Property: the Hc Allenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests Such As Domain Names David Nelmark
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 3 Article 1 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2004 Virtual Property: The hC allenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests such as Domain Names David Nelmark Recommended Citation David Nelmark, Virtual Property: The Challenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests such as Domain Names, 3 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2004). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol3/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Virtual Property: The Challenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests Such as Domain Names David Nelmark Fall 2004 VOL. 3, NO. 1 © 2004 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2004 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 3, Number 1 (Fall 2004) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Virtual Property: The Challenges of Regulating Intangible, Exclusionary Property Interests Such as Domain Names David Nelmark* I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 II. DEFINING VIRTUAL PROPERTY......................................................................2
    [Show full text]