DOCSLIB.ORG

Trademark Registration Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trademark Registration Guide TRADEMARK REGISTRATION – ASIAN COUNTRIES (Part I) 2018-2019 Abu Dhabi Bahrain Doha Dubai Lisbon Luxembourg Moscow Ras Al Khaimah Sharjah 23 A, Level 23, Tamouh Tower Level 22, West Tower Level 22, 1904, Level 19 Chiado, Rua Ivens 42 3-7 rue Schiler Akerinvest Office 501-A, Bldg 4 48-1F, Level 1 Marina Square, Reem Island Bahrain Financial Harbour Tornado Tower, Boulevard Plaza 1 Level 1, Lisbon Grand-Duche de Building 3 RAKFTZ, Near ADIB Abu Dhabi, UAE Manama, Bahrain West Bay, Doha, Qatar Downtown Dubai Portugal Luxembourg Moscow Ras Al Khaimah Hamriyah, Sharjah Tel: +971 2 6444 330 Tel: +973 1750 3045 Tel: +974 4429 4827 Tel: +971 4 368 9727 Tel: +351 21 121 8000 T: +971 7 204 2180 T: +971 6 526 4110 Fax: +971 2 6444 919 Fax: +973 1750 3030 Fax: +974 4429 4350 Tel: +971 4 369 5126 Fax:+351 21 121 8001 F: +971 7 204 2181 F +971 6 526 4027 www.ama.ae Country and Applicable Length of Trademark Definition Eligible Applicants Documentation Requirement Language Requirement and Procedures Treaty/ Treaty/Classification Legislation Trademark Classification Benefits (in years) 1. Paris Convention, WIPO or any Afghanistan. 10 Article 2 of the Afghanistan Trademark 1. Person(s) desiring to have the exclusive use 1. The trademark application with relevant application date is to be 1. Application can be submitted in English or Persian. The 1. Economic Cooperation Organization presented before Afghanistan Intellectual Property office (Ministry other international treaty for the Law defines ‘Trademark’ to include: of a trademark for distinguishing goods for Afghanistan Intellectual Property Office (Central Registration Trade Agreement seeking co- The Trademark Law of Commerce); Protection of Industrial Property; are their own production, manufacture, Office) is responsible for registration (including preliminary operation of intellectual property 2. name, address, occupation of applicant NOT signed by Afghanistan and Number effective from 1 Trademarks consist of (one or more) selection or in respect of which he issued a search) in the UAE. rights protection under article 19. 3. a copy of a legalized power of attorney for any representative hence an applicant cannot claim September 2009 (as names, words, signatures, letters, certificate (Article 4); 2. In the event of rejection, the Central Registration Office is obligated priority based on their home figures, drawings, symbols, titles, seals, 2. Goods in which applicant trades or intends 4. name, description and nature of goods, products and/or services to notify the applicant as to reasons for rejection. Note: UAE is not a member of the amended) repealing for which trademark registration is sought; applications/ registrations. However pictures, inscriptions, advertisements or to trade (Article 4); 3. Trademarks are transferable and the transfer shall be valid if recorded Madrid Convention or the Madrid Trademark Regulations 5. representation of mark with at least 10 copies along with Protocol. reciprocal arrangements are packs or any other mark or a 3. The owners of a commercial, industrial, separately with the Central Registration Office (Trademarks Registration explanation of symbols and expressions used in trademark with considered. issued on 20 September combination thereof Section) pursuant to these Articles and their relevant regulations (Article telecommunications, agricultural, the definition of component; Note: Nice Classification (9th Edition). 1960. professional or service organization in 15). 6. The registration fees payable to IP office in Afghanistan; and Afghanistan (whether domestic or foreign) 7. The particulars of earlier registration in home country or country provided that marks are registered in having reciprocal arrangements with Afghanistan, if any (Article Afhganistan (Article 5); and 10 of the Afghanistan Trademark Law also sets out the 4. owners of well-known marks (Article 7). trademark application process). Note: Alcoholic beverages are not conferred any protection under Afghanistan Trademark Law Section 2 of Bangladesh Trademark Bangladesh. 7 Section 15(1) of the 2009 Act states that if the 1. Application stating name of legal entity, individual, or firm, addresses, 1. As per the rules of 1963 with amendments all applications, notices, 1. Paris Convention for the Protection 1. Being signatory to Paris Convention, Law defines mark as “mark” includes proprietor of a trademark used or proposed to be nationality of applicant/s represented in a special or particular manner statements or other except trademarks authorized or required by of Industrial Property; the priority claim can be made under - Trademarks Act, a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, used desires to register it shall apply in the along with signature of applicant; the Act or the rules submitted to the Trade Mark Registry or left with 2. Nice Classification; the convention or by WTO members 2009 Act No. XIX name, signature, word, letter, symbol, prescribed manner to the Registrar. Accordingly the 2. legalized Power of attorney in cases where application is being or sent to the Registrar or the Central Government shall be written, 3. Convention Establishing the within 6(six) months after the date in of 2009 and numeral, figurative elements, following persons can apply for an application:- submitted by a representative; lithographed or in the English language. World Intellectual Property which the application was made in - Trademarks combination of colours or any 1. 2. In case of Mark containing characters other than roman translation in Organisation (the WIPO);and Convention Country together with combination thereof;” and Trademark Natural or juristic persons of 3. application along with mark representation must be submitted with (Amendment) Act, English must be provided and in case of mark containing words he 4. World Trade Organisation (the WTO) the complete particulars and Bangladeshi nationality; supporting documents and should be lithographed or in the English 2015 is defined as “a registered trademark Registrar may ask for an exact translation thereof together with the - Agreement on Trade-Related certified copy of the priority 2. persons regularly residing in Bangladesh language in large and legible characters with deep permanent ink - Trade Marks or a mark used in relation to goods for name of the language, and such translation and name, if he so Aspects of Intellectual Property application, the trademark shall, if and are permitted to engage in upon strong paper; Rules, 1963 and; the purpose of indicating a connection requires, shall be enclosed and signed. registered under section 120 of Act commercial or vocational activities; Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) - Trademarks Rules, in the course of trade between the 4. in relation to affidavits, prints should be on only one side of 3. The application is made to the Trademark registry and as per section (1994) (April 10, 1996) and be registered as of the date on 3. foreigners who are nationals of countries 2015. goods and the person having the right approximately 13 inches by 8 inches, and the left hand part to a 15(2) separate applications must be made for each class of goods or which the application was made in that extend reciprocal treatment to as proprietor to use the mark;” or “a margin of not less than one inch a half; the Convention Country and that Bangladesh; services. The application shall be made on form TM-1, if in respect of mark used in relation to a service so non-textile goods. Defensive trademark registration can be applied by date shall be deemed to be the date 4. Public agencies. and owners of well-known 5. every application for the registration of a trade mark shall be in that it may be indicated that the form. of registration. marks. respect of goods in one class and separate application for each class TM-3 person has the right as proprietor to shall be made for same trademark; and 4. The opposition can be made under section 18 of the act within two (2) use the mark in the course of trade”. months from the date of publication. The registrar shall serve the notice 6. statement of use, if used, the registrar may require applicant to file an of opposition to applicant within one (1) month. affidavit testifying to such user with exhibits showing the mark as used. Country and Applicable Length of Trademark Definition Eligible Applicants Documentation Requirement Language Requirement and Procedures Treaty/ Classification Treaty/Classification Benefits Legislation Trademark (in years) 1. As stated under the rules a translation Brunei Darussalam 10 Under Part I of Brunei Darussalam As per section 33 of Brunei Trademark Law, the 1. Request for registration of trademark; 1. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial 1. 1. Priority Claim can be made under Paris Convention or WTO and / or transliteration, of each word in Trademark Law: (Refer, section 4) application can be made by “applicant” who has Property; by nationals and body corporate residing or having permanent The law providing for 2. name and address of applicant; English to the satisfaction of the Registrar trade mark is defined as “any visually used the mark or has bona fide intention to use 2. Nice Classification; place of business in member states within 6 months from the first should be provided where a trade mark trademark registration is perceptible sign capable of being the mark. Accordingly following persons qualify 3. statement of goods and services in respect of which the trademark is 3. Convention Establishing the WIPO; filing date. sought to be registered; contains or consists of a word/s in The Trade Marks Act (Cap represented graphically which is as applicant:- 4. World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Agreement on 2. characters other than Roman or in a 2. Agreement between Japan and Brunei Darussalam for an 98) and Trade Marks Rules capable of distinguishing goods or 4. representation of the mark; Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1. Natural or juristic persons of Brunei language other than English or Malay.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Dead Copies” Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act: the New Moral Right
    Saint Louis University Law Journal Volume 51 Number 1 Fall 2006 Article 5 2006 “Dead Copies” Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act: The New Moral Right Kenneth L. Port William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth L. Port, “Dead Copies” Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act: The New Moral Right, 51 St. Louis U. L.J. (2006). Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol51/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW “DEAD COPIES” UNDER THE JAPANESE UNFAIR COMPETITION PREVENTION ACT: THE NEW MORAL RIGHT KENNETH L. PORT* INTRODUCTION In 1993, the Japanese legislature, or Diet, amended the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA) to prevent the slavish copying (moho) of another’s product configuration (shohinno keitai) regardless of registration, regardless of notice of any kind, regardless of whether the configuration was distinctive in 1 any way, and regardless of whether any consumer was confused or deceived. * Professor of Law and Director of Intellectual Property Studies, William Mitchell College of Law. J.D., University of Wisconsin. I am deeply indebted to Laurie Sheen (WMCL ‘07) and Toshiya Kaneko (University of Tokyo) for their assistance with this article. This article was researched while I was a Foreign Research Fellow at the Tokyo University Business Law Center under the gracious auspices of Professor Nobuhiro Nakayama.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Japanese Trademark Law
    Overview of Japanese Trademark Law 2nd Edition Shoen Ono 注: これは、日本語で書かれた『商標法概説［第2版］』（有斐閣、1999）の英訳です。 原著者に翻訳及び公開の許可をいただき公開しております。翻訳については財団法人 知的財産研究所（現在、一般財団法人知的財産研究教育財団 知的財産研究所）が翻訳 事業者に依頼して作成した英訳であり、原著者及び弊所は日本語版と英語版の間に生じ 得る差異について責任を負いません。テキストに対する公式な言及、またその引用を行 う場合には、オリジナルの日本語版に当たり確認してください。 Note: This is the English translation from “Overview of Japanese Trademark Law [2nd ed.]” (Yuhikaku, 1999), written in Japanese. The original author has given permission for translation and publication. The translation was created by a translation company at the request of Institute of Intellectual Property (Currently: Foundation for Intellectual Property, Institute of Intellectual Property). The original author or Foundation for Intellectual Property, Institute of Intellectual Property is not responsible for any discrepancies that may exist between the Japanese and English versions. Readers are recommended to confirm the original Japanese version when formally referencing or citing the text. PART 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS CHAPTER 2: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRADEMARK LAW CHAPTER 3: THE CONCEPT OF THE TRADEMARK LAW CHAPTER 4: SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE TRADEMARK LAW PART 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS Significance of Trademark Protection Trademarks play a vital role in day to day choices made by the consuming public. Consider the effect of trademarks on those who purchase goods and receive services, consumers. Consumers rely on trademarks, for example, to more easily facilitate repeat purchases of goods or services based on a previous pleasurable experience or a manufacturer’s reputation for quality. Trademarks enable consumers to make repeated purchases without extensive research. A critical trait of a strong mark is that it uniquely serves to identify source. Marks that are similar not only inadequately designate true origin, but can actually suggest the wrong origin, encouraging confusion and misleading consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Known Trademark Protection
    WIPO SIX MONTH STUDY - CUM - RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP Well -Known Trademark Protection Reference to the Japanese experience Final Report In Fulfillment of the Long Term Fellowship Sponsored By: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Collaboration with the Japan Patent Office April 2 - Septembe r 30, 2010 Submitted By: Hà Th Nguy t Thu National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam (NOIP) 384 -386 Nguyen Trai, Thanh Xuan, Ha Noi, Vietnam Supervised By: Prof. Kenichi MOROOKA National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) 7-22 -1 Roppongi, Minato -ku, Tokyo 1 06 -8677, JAPAN This report is a mandatory requirement of this fellowship; views and findings are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policy considerations of his organization or sponsor of this study. 1 WIPO SIX MONTH STUDY - CUM - RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP Page INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1 1. Overview of research theme 1 2. Some misunderstanding definitions: famous 2 trademark, well -known trademark, widely - known trademark, trademark with high reputation 3. The function of trademarks and protection 6 trademark CHAPTER 1 INTERNATIONAL FRAMWORK OF 10 WELL -KNOWN TRADEMARKS PROTECTION 1.1 . Paris Convention 10 1.2 . TRIPs Agreement 12 1.3 . WIPO Joint Recommendations concerning 14 provisions on Protection of Well -known Marks CHAPTER 2 WELL -KNOWN TRADEMARKS 15 PROTECTION UNDER JAPANESE LAW 2.1. Protection o f well -known trademark under the 15 Trademark Law (JTL) 2.1.1. Prohibition of Registration of a mark identical or 15 similar to well -known/famous trademark of others 2.1.2. Expansion of Protection of well -known 30 trademarks 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Myanmar Study on Cooperation for the Establishing of Intellectual Property Office
    Myanmar Ministry of Science and Technology Myanmar Study on Cooperation for the Establishing of Intellectual Property Office Final Report March 2014 Japan International Cooperation Agency Kyoto Comparative Law Center Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners IL JR 14-039 Contents Map of Myanmar Abstract Chapter I: Introduction 1.1 Background ···················································································· 1 1.2 Framework of the Survey ·································································· 1 1.3 Survey Target ·················································································· 4 1.4 Activities and Schedule ······································································ 4 1.5 Survey Method ·············································································· 5 1.6 Survey Itinerary ············································································· 7 Chapter II: Current Status of Intellectual Property Law System 2.1 Current Status of Intellectual Property Law System ····································· 11 2.1.1 Overview of Intellectual Property Law System ····································· 11 2.1.2 Trademark Law ·········································································· 11 2.1.3 Patent Law ················································································ 16 2.1.4 Industrial Design Law ·································································· 17 2.1.5 Copyright Law ··········································································· 18
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Patent & Trademark Update
    TMI Associates Issue7 (July 2017) Japan Patent & The reason for this misconception could be that some in the below graph, in 70% of patent infringement lawsuits First, as shown in the below graph, the number of patent In sum, the decrease in the total number of patent applications by 2007; however, the Defendant continued using the articles discuss statistics regarding Japanese patent the judges did not make any decisions on the validity of the applications filed from the other IP5 countries does not show seems to have mostly come from the change in patent filing trademark “Eemax”. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for Unfair Trademark Update lawsuits based only on those cases which have reached a patents. Further, in 43% of patent infringement lawsuits, such a decrease. Rather, the number of patent applications filed policy, i.e., shifting the focus from quantity to quality Competition asserting that the Defendant’s use of “Eemax” was judgment. The information on settled cases, as shown in even though the plaintiffs made invalidation arguments, the by U.S. entities has actually been increasing since 2013. of patents, and not as a result of any decrease in the impermissible given that it is a well-known trademark of the the above graph, was not announced before, and such judges still did not make any decisions with respect to validity. importance of obtaining patent protection in Japan. Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff had not registered the mark. In success rate could previously only be examined based on In other words, it is inappropriate to derive any significant Number of patent applications filed by foreign entities response, the Defendant filed a counterclaim asserting that the cases in which judgments were rendered.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Patent Attorney 2009.Pdf
    CONTENTS Page I. Patent·······················································································································································1 1. General Views ·································································································································1 2. The Role of a Patent Attorney ·······································································································3 3. The Dialogue with Applicants·······································································································4 (1) Approach by Applicants··········································································································4 (2) Conflict of Interest ···················································································································5 (3) Responsibilities of Patent Attorneys······················································································8 4. Search ···············································································································································9 5. Preparation and Filing of Patent Applications·············································································9 (1) Documents Required···············································································································9 (2) The Task of a Patent Attorney ······························································································11 (3) Order
    [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]
  • Coca-Cola, Trade Dress Rights in Japan
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Portfolio Media, Inc. | 648 Broadway, Suite 200 | New York, NY 10012 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 | Fax: +1 212 537 6371 | [email protected] ________________________________________________________________________ Coca-Cola, Trade Dress Rights In Japan Wednesday, Jun 04, 2008 --- On May 29, 2008, the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan issued a decision recognizing the Coca-Cola Bottle as a three-dimensional trademark (rittai shohyo) under the Trademark Act. The relatively new appeals court, which only came into existence three years ago, reversed an administrative decision By the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) rejecting a trademark application By Coca-Cola. As a result the “contour Bottle,” as the iconic cola Bottle is officially designated By Coca-Cola, Became the first instance in which trade dress has Been recognized as Being registraBle under Japanese trademark law. This decision is potentially significant for a variety of reasons, as discussed Below. Japanese Law On Trade Dress: Evolving Toward Greater Recognition The recognition of rights in a product’s trade dress (shohin keitai) is a relatively recent development in Japanese law. Since 1993, trade dress has Been specifically protectiBle pursuant to the provisions of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA), which provide monetary and injunctive relief against parties that engage in the copying, taking or misuse of the “configuration”– i.e., the size,
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark and Domain Name Interface
    TRADEMARK AND DOMAIN NAME INTERFACE: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC by Kasybekova Kanykei LL.M. SHORT THESIS COURSE: International and European Intellectual Property Law PROFESSORS: György Boytha, Dr. and Vladimir Pavic, Dr. Central European University 1051 Budapest, Nador utca 9. Hungary CEU eTD Collection © Central European University March 29, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank my Mom and Dad for their endless love and support. I would like to express deep gratitude to my late supervisor Professor G. Boytha and to the Legal Studies Department for their help. I would like to thank “Britner & Partners” LLC and “Atan Consult” LLC for their help in providing all relevant and needed information on Kyrgyzstan, specifically with regard to cases on domain names, and Aisulu Chubarova for her help. I would like to commend for my group mates for being near me and friends for their invaluable friendship, especially Dinara Asanbaeva for all her support and care. Special thanks go to my Moot Team Friends for sharing their knowledge and ideas and for their inspiration through all this time. CEU eTD Collection ii ABSTRACT Internet has brought numerous challenges to the intellectual property legislation, and in particular, trademark law. Trademarks serve as a source of identifier of goods, while the domain name function through representing Internet Protocol addresses is the same. Both are registered on a first-come-first-served basis. Yet uniqueness of each string of alphanumeric characters as an Internet address and global nature of domain names differ from traditional trademark law features such as territoriality and specificity allowing similar trademarks co-exist for different classes of goods and services.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Trademark System in Japan
    OUTLINE OF TRADEMARK SYSTEM IN JAPAN 1. General ·························································································· 1 2. Filing Requirements ·········································································· 1 3. Search ··························································································· 2 4. Examination ···················································································· 2 5. Appeal against Decision for Rejection ··················································· 3 6. Opposition ······················································································ 4 7. Trials for Invalidation or Cancellation ···················································· 4 8. License··························································································· 6 9. Infringement ···················································································· 7 10. Duration of Registration and Renewal ··················································· 7 11. Trademark Marking ··········································································· 7 12. Well-known Trademarks ···································································· 7 13. Assignment ····················································································· 8 14. Recording Change of Name and Address ·············································· 8 15. Appeal before IP High Court ······························································· 8 For further information, please
    [Show full text]
  • Argentina Argentine Argentinien Report Q168 in the Name of the Argentinean Group by Claudia SERRITELLI, Ricardo RICHELET (H), Se
    Argentina Argentine Argentinien Report Q168 in the name of the Argentinean Group by Claudia SERRITELLI, Ricardo RICHELET (h), Sergio ELLMANN, Gustavo GIAY, Ariel MANOFF Use of a mark "as a mark" as a legal requirement in respect of acquisition, maintenance and infringement of rights 1. Is there any requirement for use of a mark "as a mark" for the purposes of 1.1 Acquiring a mark (if rights may be acquired by use according to national law) No prior use of a mark "as a mark" is required by national law in order to acquire rights on the mark. Under Argentine trademark law, property and exclusive use rights on a trademark are ac- quired through registration. However, local courts have acknowledged rights on unregistered marks under certain con- ditions, such as having used the mark for a legitimate business for a reasonable time hav- ing thus created a clientele for such mark. Courts have even recently granted "injunctions" in defence of intensely used -though unregistered- trademarks. 1.2 Maintaining of a trademark registration (e.g. against an application for cancellation on grounds of non-use) Use of a mark "as a mark" is required for maintaining a trademark registration. As per national trademark law, trademarks may be renewed if used within the last five years prior to expiration either "in the marketing of a product, the rendering of a service or as part of the designation of an activity or business name". At the same time, trademarks are vulnerable to cancellation actions on account of non-use, if unused within the last five years prior to the bringing of the cancellation action.
    [Show full text]
  • The Expansion Trajectory: Trademark Jurisprudence in the Modern Age Kenneth L
    Mitchell Hamline School of Law Mitchell Hamline Open Access Faculty Scholarship 2010 The Expansion Trajectory: Trademark Jurisprudence in the Modern Age Kenneth L. Port Mitchell Hamline School of Law, [email protected] Publication Information 92 Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 474 Repository Citation Port, Kenneth L., "The Expansion Trajectory: Trademark Jurisprudence in the Modern Age" (2010). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 199. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/facsch/199 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Expansion Trajectory: Trademark Jurisprudence in the Modern Age Abstract American trademark law is expanding. The expansion began with the adoption of the Lanham Act in 1947. At that time and ever since, commentators and law makers alike referred to the Lanham Act as a codification of the existing common law. In fact, this codification was a selection and expansion of the common law. The nitU ed States has continued to expand trademark jurisprudence: from incontestability, to cybersquatting, to dilution - the notion of what it means to protect a trademark has continued to expand. During this time, the Commerce Clause on which American federal trademark protection is based has not changed. The er sult of this inextricable expansion is that trademark jurisprudence in the United States is becoming muddled. Originally, trademark protection was justified as a right of exclusion that was granted to the user of a sign for their exclusive use for as long as they used it and to the extent they used it.
    [Show full text]