DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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? .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.5 The functions of a trademark . 11 1.6 Service marks . 11 1.7 Other signs . 12 1.8 Protection against unfair competition, counterfeiting and piracy . 12 CHAPTER 2. WHAT CONSTITUTES A REGISTRABLE TRADEMARK? 13 2.1 Signs..................... ........................................... .. 15 2.2 Distinctive signs . 17 CHAPTER 3. UNREGISTRABLE SIGNS (EXCLUSION FROM REGISTRATION)...... 19 3. 1 Lack of distinctiveness . 21 3.2 Exclusions from registration on other grounds-public interest. 30 CHAPTER 4. TRADEMARK REGISTRATION.... .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. 35 4.1 Who can apply for registration of a trademark?... 37 4.2 Registration requirements. 3 7 4.3 Exa1nination . 38 4.4 Refusal of registration .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40 4.5 Date of registration . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40 4.6 Duration and renewal.......................... .................... .. 40 4.7 Publication and access to the register . 41 CHAPTER 5. USE OF THE MARK . 43 5.1 Need for an obligation to use................ ...... .......... ....... 45 5.2 Practical use requirements....... ........... .. ..................... 45 5.3 Consequences of non-- use............................................. 47 5.4 Proper use of trademarks.............. .............................. 47 CHAPTER 6. RIGHTS ARISING FROM TRADEMARK REGISTRATION 49 6.1 The right to use the trademark.. 51 6.2 The right to exclude others from using the mark................. ... 52 6.3 Restrictioin of the exclusive right in the public interest... 60 6.4 Remedies for trademark infringement . .. 61 CHAPTER 7. REMOVAL OF THE TRADEMARK FROM THE REGISTER 63 7.1 Removal for failure to renew . 65 7.2 Removal at the request of the registered owner . 65 7.3 Removal for failure to use............................................ 65 7.4 Cancellation on account of nullity . 66 7.5 Removal of a mark that has lost its distinctiveness . 66 6 CONTENTS CHAPTER 8. CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP . .... ......................... 67 8.1 Reasons for change of ownership ............. ..................... 69 8.2 Voluntary change of ownership: Assignment ....................... 69 8.3 Recorda! of change of ownership .......................... .......... 70 8.4 Formalities ............... .. ......... .......................... ...... 71 CHAPTER 9. TRADEMARK LICENSING .......... .. .................... 73 9.1 lmportance of licensing . ....................... ..... .. ........ ..... 75 9.2 Basic concept: control by the owner ................................ 75 9.3 Formal requirements ...... ......................................... 76 9.4 Restricti ons on the licensee ..... .. ............ ... .. ............ 77 CHAPTER 10. SERVICE MARKS ......... ................................ 79 10.1 Function of service marks ............. ...... .. .. ......... ..... .. 81 10.2 Protection of service marks .................. ... ......... ....... 81 10.3 Criteria to be applied ........................... .. ................... 82 ( CHAPTER 11. COLLECTIVE (CERTIFICATION) MARKS AND APPELLATIONS OF ORIGIN ............................. 85 11.1 Collective and certification marks ............. ... ......... ... ...... 87 11.2 Appellations of origin . .............................................. 89 CHAPTER 12. TRADE NAMES ........................ ..... ............... 91 12.1 Legal requirements ........ ... .......... .... ... .. .... ... 93 12.2 Legal protection .. .. .......... .. .............................. ... .... 93 CHAPTER 13. UNFAIR COMPETITION .... ....... ..... .................. 95 13.1 Trademark piracy ............................. .. ......... ........... 97 13.2 Counterfeiting .. .. ................ ... .................. .... ......... 98 13.3 Imitation of labels and packaging .... ... ... ..... ....... ...... 99 CHAPTER 14. OBTAINING PROTECTION FOR MARKS IN SEVERAL ( COUNTRIES: THE MADRID SYSTEM.................. 101 14.1 Introduction............... .... ................. .. ................... 103 14.2 The Agreement........ .... .................... ...................... 104 14.3 Shortcomings of the Agreement for certain countries ... ........ 108 14.4 The Protocol.... ... .. ................. .. ............................. 109 14.5 Application of the Protocol and relationship to the Agreement . 112 14.6 Conclusion....... 114 APPENDIX I. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED IN THE TEXT, WITH COMMENTARY............................ ........ 115 APPENDIX 11. THE INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE REGISTRATION OF MARKS............................... 131 APPENDIX Ill. LIST OF fMEM-B-M STATES PARTY TO THE MADRID f-·f t.r AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS ON JANUARY 1, 1993 . 139 CHAPTER 1 TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY ( { ( TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 9 CHAPTER 1 TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY Trademarks already existed in the ancient world. Even at times when people either prepared what they needed themselves or, more usually, acquired it from local craftsmen, there were already creative entrepreneurs who marketed their goods beyond their localities and sometimes over considerable distances. As long as 3,000 years ago, Indian craftsmen used to engrave their signatures on their artistic crea­ tions before sending them to Iran. Manufacturers from China sold goods bearing their marks in the Mediterranean area over 2,000 years ago and at one time about a thousand different Roman pottery marks were in use, including the FORTIS brand, which became so famous that it was copied and counterfeited. With the flourishing trade of the Middle Ages, the use of signs to distinguish the goods of merchants and manufacturers likewise expanded several hundred years ago. Their economic impor­ tance was still limited, however. Trademarks started to play an important role with industrialization, and they have since become a key factor in the modern world of international trade and market-oriented economies. How can this be explained, and what is the role trademarks have to play? 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce Industrialization and the growth of the system of the market-oriented economy allow competing manufacturers and traders to offer consumers a variety of goods in the same category. Often without any apparent differences for the consumer they do generally differ in quality, price and other characteristics. Clearly consumers need to be given the guidance that will allow them to consider the alternatives and make their choice between the competing goods. Consequently, the goods must be named. The medium for naming goods on the market is precisely the trademark. Businesses also need trademarks to individualize their products, however, in order to reach out to consumers and communicate with them. So, trademarks serve their owners in the advertising and selling of goods, and they serve the economy in a general sense by helping to rationalize the commercialization of goods. By enabling consumers to make their choice between the various goods avail­ able on the market, trademarks encourage their owners to maintain and improve the quality of the products sold under the trademark, in order to meet consumer expecta­ tions. In a market that offers a choice, a consumer who is disappointed will not buy the same product again. One who is satisfied will tend to rely on the trademark for his future purchase decisions. Thus trademarks reward the manufacturer who constantly produces high-quality goods, and as a result they stimulate economic progress. 1.2 What is a trademark? From these deliberations on the function and role that the trademark plays in the market, one can deduce a definition of the trademark: "A trademark
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]
  • A Bundle of Rights
    A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2004) Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. __________ A. THE DISTRIBUTION RIGHT 17 U.S.C. § 109 (2004) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A that are manufactured before the date of restoration
    [Show full text]
  • Circular 1 Copyright Basics
    CIRCULAR 1 Copyright Basics Copyright is a form of protection Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the provided by U.S. law to authors of United States to the authors of “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. An original “original works of authorship” from work of authorship is a work that is independently created by the time the works are created in a a human author and possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. A work is “fixed” when it is captured (either fixed form. This circular provides an by or under the authority of an author) in a sufficiently overview of basic facts about copyright permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, and copyright registration with the reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time. Copyright protection in the United States exists automatically U.S. Copyright Office. It covers from the moment the original work of authorship is fixed.1 • Works eligible for protection • Rights of copyright owners What Works Are Protected? • Who can claim copyright • Duration of copyright Examples of copyrightable works include • Literary works • Musical works, including any accompanying words • Dramatic works, including any accompanying music • Pantomimes and choreographic works • Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works • Motion pictures and other audiovisual works • Sound recordings, which are works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds • Architectural works These categories should be viewed broadly for the purpose of registering your work. For example, computer programs and certain “compilations” can be registered as “literary works”; maps and technical drawings can be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” w copyright.gov note: Before 1978, federal copyright was generally secured by publishing a work with an appro- priate copyright notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: the All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 28 XXVIII Number 3 Article 1 2018 Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action Mark J. Abate Goodwin Procter LLP, [email protected] Christopher J. Morten Goodwin Procter LLP, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark J. Abate and Christopher J. Morten, Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action, 28 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 477 (2018). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol28/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action Cover Page Footnote *Mark Abate, a Partner at Goodwin Procter LLP, concentrates his practice on trials and appeals of patent infringement cases, and has particular expertise in matters involving electronics, computers, software, financial systems, and electrical, mechanical, and medical devices. He has tried cases to successful conclusions in U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission and has argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is the former President of both the New York Intellectual Property Law Association and the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association, and is a board member of the Federal Circuit Historical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademarks, Metatags, and Initial Interest Confusion: a Look to the Past to Re- Conceptualize the Future
    173 TRADEMARKS, METATAGS, AND INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION: A LOOK TO THE PAST TO RE- CONCEPTUALIZE THE FUTURE CHAD J. DOELLINGER* INTRODUCTION Web sites, through domain names and metatags, have created a new set of problems for trademark owners. A prominent problem is the use of one’s trademarks in the metatags of a competitor’s web site. The initial interest confusion doctrine has been used to combat this problem.1 Initial interest confusion involves infringement based on confusion that creates initial customer interest, even though no transaction takes place.2 Several important questions have currently received little atten- tion: How should initial interest confusion be defined? How should initial interest confusion be conceptualized? How much confusion is enough to justify a remedy? Who needs to be confused, when, and for how long? How should courts determine when initial interest confusion is sufficient to support a finding of trademark infringement? These issues have been glossed over in the current debate by both courts and scholars alike. While the two seminal opinions involving the initial interest confusion doctrine, Brookfield Commun., Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp.3 and * B.A., B.S., University of Iowa (1998); J.D., Yale Law School (2001). Mr. Doellinger is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. The author would like to thank Uli Widmaier for his assistance and insights. The views and opinions in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson. 1 See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen Mcjohn
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 9 Article 1 Issue 4 January Spring 2011 Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn Recommended Citation Stephen McJohn, Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases, 9 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2011). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol9/iss4/1 This Perspective 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 Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn January 2011 VOL. 9, NO. 4 © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 9, Number 4 (January 2011) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases By Stephen McJohn* ¶1 The following are notable intellectual property decisions for patent and trademark in 2010 in the United States. Notable copyright and trade secret cases will be examined in a subsequent article. Viewed across doctrinal lines, some interesting threads emerge involving the scope of protection, the amount of secondary liability, and ownership of the intellectual property rights. ¶2 The scope of protection was at issue in both areas. Bilski v. Kappos marked a shift from using technical tests for patent subject matter to relying on the basic exclusions against patents on laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.1 Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting in Gtlds Old Style, Cctld Style and Gtld New Style
    Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting In ccTLD, Old Style gTLD and New Style gTLD Systems COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE US, EU AND INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES By Waddah Al-rawashdedh University of Szeged Faculty of Law and Political Sciences Graduate School Hungary 2017 Spring Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting Table of Contents Page DEDICATION ............................................................................................ 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ 12 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 1 DOMAIN NAMES AND TRADEMARKS ................................................ 22 1.1. Overview ....................................................................................... 22 1.2. Meaning of Domain Names and Domain Name System (DNS) ............................................................................................. 22 1.3. The Need and Importance of Domain Names ........................... 25 1.4. Types of Domain Names ............................................................. 26 1.4.1. “Country-code” TLDs ............................................................................... 26 1.4.2. “generic” TLDs ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NYU School of Law Outline: Trademarks, Barton Beebe
    NYU School of Law Outline: Trademarks, Barton Beebe Will Frank (Class of 2011) Fall Semester, 2009 Contents 1 Introduction to Trademark and Unfair Competition Law 3 1.1 Sources and Nature of Rights . 4 1.2 The Nature of Unfair Competition Law . 4 1.3 Purposes of Trademark Law . 4 1.4 The Lanham Act . 5 2 Distinctiveness 6 2.1 The Spectrum of Distinctiveness . 7 2.2 Descriptiveness and Secondary Meaning . 7 2.3 Generic Terms . 8 2.4 Distinctiveness of Nonverbal Identifiers (Logos, Packages, Prod- uct Design, Colors) . 9 2.4.1 Different Tests/Standards? . 9 2.4.2 Expanding the Types of Nonverbal Marks . 9 2.4.3 The Design/Packaging Distinction . 10 2.4.4 Trade Dress Protection After Wal-Mart . 10 2.5 The Edge of Protection: Subject Matter Exclusions? . 12 2.5.1 Exotic Source-Identifiers . 12 2.6 Review . 12 3 Functionality 13 3.1 The Concept . 14 3.2 The Scope of the Doctrine . 15 3.3 The Modern Approach . 15 3.4 Post-TrafFix Devices Applications . 17 4 Use 18 4.1 As a Jurisdictional Prerequisite . 18 4.2 As a Prerequisite for Acquiring Rights . 18 4.2.1 Actual Use . 18 4.2.2 Constructive Use . 19 1 4.3 \Surrogate" Uses . 20 4.3.1 By Affiliates . 20 4.4 The Public as Surrogate . 20 4.5 Loss of Rights . 21 4.5.1 Abandonment Through Non-Use . 21 4.5.2 Abandonment Through Failure to Control Use . 21 5 Registration 22 5.1 The Registration Process . 22 5.1.1 Overview .
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property on the Cyder-Picket Line: a Comment on British Columbia Automobile Assn
    934 ALBERTA LAW REVIEW VOL. 39(4) 2002 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ON THE CYDER-PICKET LINE: A COMMENT ON BRITISH COLUMBIA AUTOMOBILE ASSN. V. OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 378 TERESA SC ASSA• I. INTRODUCTION A recent decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court, British Columbia Automobile Assn. v. O.P.E.I. U., local 378, 1 raises issues of"passing off," trademark, and copyright infringement relating to web sites, domain names,2 and meta tags. 3 In this comment I will explore these issues, all of which may commonly arise in situations of alleged competition between web sites. The case thus provides a context for exploring legitimate and unlawful uses of domain names and meta tags, copyright infringement, and web site design, and it touches on the role of s. 22 of the Trade-marks Act. 4 Because BCAA also occurs in the context of a labour dispute, it raises further issues about intellectual property rights and freedom of expression. These issues have arisen before in the non-Internet labour dispute cases of Cie Generate des Etablissements Michelin­ Michelin & Cie v. C.A. W.-Canada5 and Rotisseries St-Hubert ltee v. le Syndical des Travailleurs(euses) de la Rotisserie St-Hubert De Drummondville (C.S.N.),6 and their resolution continues to raise serious concerns about the balance being struck between monopolistic intellectual property rights and the fundamental right of freedom of expression. The plaintiff, British Columbia Automobile Association ("BCAA''), a member of the national Canadian Automobile Association ("CAA"), sued the defendant Office and Professional Employees' Union ("Union") over three successive web sites created by the Union to publicize a strike by BCAA employees.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes
    American University Law Review Volume 48 | Issue 4 Article 2 1999 Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States Paul Kuruk Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Kuruk, Paul. “ Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States.” American University Law Review 48, no.4 (April, 1999): 769-843. 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]. Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States Keywords Folklore, Intellectual Property Law, Regional Arrangements This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol48/iss4/2 PROTECTING FOLKLORE UNDER MODERN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIMES: A REAPPRAISAL OF THE TENSIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNAL RIGHTS IN AFRICA AND THE UNITED STATES * PAUL KURUK TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................. I. Folklore Under Traditional Systems........................................ 776 A. Nature of Folklore ............................................................. 776 B. Protection Under Customary Law .................................... 780 1. Social groups and rights in folklore ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Your Idea This Guide Is Designed to Help Small Business Owners Make Informed Decisions Regarding Their Trademarks, Service Marks, Copy Right & Patents
    Protecting Your Idea This guide is designed to help small business owners make informed decisions regarding their trademarks, service marks, copy right & patents. Trademark & Service Mark A trademark (also known as a brand name) is used to distinguish physical products while a service mark identifies a service such as a financial service, advertising, etc. Trademark or service mark rights can be established by: • Simply starting to use the mark, but the rights are limited to that state; • Applying for a federal registration for use nationwide. The designation "TM" for trademark and "SM" for service mark is used with the name when the mark is not federally registered. ® or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm.Off." means the mark is federally registered. Where a mark is not likely to be used in interstate or foreign commerce, one should consider a state registered mark, it is quick and inexpensive to register. Federal registration provides nationwide priority rights and offers federal court protection against infringement. In international trade, the mark must be registered on a country by country basis. To register a trademark or service mark in New York State, contact: NY State Dept. of State-Division of Corporation and State Records, Albany (518) 474-4770. To register a mark federally, Please contact: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office/U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20231 (800) 786-9199 Website: http://www.uspto.gov/ Copyright A copyright, designated by a ©, protects literary, artistic, and musical works including sculptures, movies, computer programs, etc:" Registration is granted by the federal government and is inexpensive. Although it is not necessary to register to use the symbol, registration is needed to bring suit for copyright infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Reverse Passing Off: Preventing Healthy Competition
    COMMENTS Reverse Passing Off: Preventing Healthy Competition Catherine Romero Wright DILBERT® reprinted by permission of United Feature Syndicate, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION 1 Chad Wayland, a university student, was an avid snowboarder. When he was not on the slopes or involved with homework, he was waxing his board or experimenting with adjustments to it in his garage. Eventually, Chad discovered that some of the adjustments that he had * Associate, Perkins Coie, Seattle; J.D. 1996, Seattle University School of Law; B.A. 1986, Stanford University. I would like to thank my husband, Daniel Wright, for all of his support, my daughter, Monica Romero Wright, who was with me throughout the process of writing this article, and Peter Schalestock for all of his help and encouragement. 1. This hypothetical is loosely based on a case that was filed in the District Court, Western District of Washington, in 1995. Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 20:785 made to his board really improved its performance. His snowboarding friends noticed it too. Chad ended up with a small garage business, fixing up snowboards for his friends and their friends. One day, a Japanese corporation approached Chad and asked if he would sell them a few of his modified snowboards. Knowing that this was an excellent opportunity to develop a business that he really loved, Chad accepted the offer. He purchased twenty snowboards from the Slide Corporation, modified fifteen of them, and sent the entire batch to the Japanese corporation. The Japanese corporation was impressed with his modified board. It ordered 200 more and offered to pay a very large amount.
    [Show full text]