DOCSLIB.ORG

Can Trademark Laws Dictate What Is Disparaging?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can Trademark Laws Dictate What Is Disparaging? and leader, Simon Shiao Tam, says he started the all-Asian group and named it The Slants to “re-appropriate” the racial iWitness slur. He explains that “we want to take on these stereotypes that people have about us, like the slanted eye, and own them.” In CAN TRADEMARK LAWS re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). From its humble beginnings at DictATE WHAT IS local dive bars 10 years ago, The Slants— who describe themselves as “Chinatown DiSPARAGING? Dance Rock”—have risen to fame, now playing dance rock music all over the world. Check out The Slants’ press release, New Music Video: Heartbeat Is Heaven (Sept. 29, 2016), http://www.theslants. YURI MIKULka AND CALEB BEAN com/new-music-video-heartbeat-is- The authors are intellectual property litigators with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, Costa Mesa, California. heaven/. Although its fan base may be millennials in plaid shirts with tattoos, the band now has the rapt attention of prominent judges and lawyers around the nation who are attempting to reconcile this unusual intersection of the federal trademark law and the First Amendment and determine what can be deemed dis- paraging in this modern age. Can federal trademark law prohibit reg- trademark registration of the trademark istration of trademarks that are dispar- THE SLANTS. This has been a subject Journey Through the Legal aging? Currently, yes. But how do you of heated controversy. The USPTO be- Maze determine what is disparaging? And lieves the mark should not be registered The band’s journey through the legal wouldn’t such a prohibition violate our because it is disparaging, while the U.S. maze started in 2011 when Mr. Tam filed First Amendment right to free speech? Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for what he thought was a routine federal Possibly. believes the disparagement clause is alto- trademark registration with the USPTO. Under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, gether unconstitutional. Even groups that While common law provides trademark 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), the U.S. Patent and are often aligned, such as the National protection without a federal registration, Trademark Office (USPTO) can refuse a Asian Pacific American Bar Association registering a trademark with the USPTO trademark registration that “comprises and the American Civil Liberties Union affords important protection and benefits. immoral, deceptive, or scandalous mat- disagree on this issue. For instance, registration provides a na- ter; or matter which may disparage.” In the 70 years of its existence, sec- tionwide constructive notice of the trade- The USPTO has applied this disparage- tion 2(a) has never been reviewed by the mark ownership, as well as presumption ment clause to refuse registrations such higher court. Now, for the first time, the of trademark validity and ownership, and as HAVE YOU HEARD THAT SATAN Supreme Court will weigh in on the va- the mark becomes incontestable in five IS A REPUBLICAN?, DEMOCRATS lidity of the disparagement clause and years; registration also provides for en- SHOULDN’T BREED, and THE whether it can be applied to prohibit dis- hanced monetary and equitable relief and CHRISTIAN PROSTITUTE. paraging marks like THE SLANTS. recovery of attorney fees under certain But is a term still disparaging if the Since at least World War II, “slants” circumstances. intended target is the one seeking to has been used as a racial slur to refer to When the USPTO refused Mr. Tam’s register the disparaging mark? Consider the eye shape of individuals of Asian de- trademark application on the grounds Lee v. Tam. That case involves an all- scent. But a rock band in Portland, Oregon, that the mark is disparaging to persons Asian rock band’s request for federal seeks to change that. The band’s founder of Asian descent, Mr. Tam appealed to 12 LITIGATION the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. First Amendment. This is because, the • Whether the disparagement clause is The board affirmed the USPTO’s decision, court explained, it “penaliz[es] private contrary to the First Amendment; concluding that “[t]he fact that applicant speech merely because [the government] has good intentions underlying his use of disapproves of the message it conveys.” • Whether the disparagement clause is the term does not obviate the fact that a Id. at 1327. The Federal Circuit recog- unconstitutionally vague under the substantial composite of the referenced nized that, while some trademarks “con- First and Fifth Amendments; and group find the term objectionable.” In re vey hurtful speech that harms members Tam, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 485, at *8. of oft-stigmatized communities,” the • Whether the disparagement clause Mr. Tam then appealed to the U.S. First Amendment “protects even hurtful bars the registration of THE SLANTS Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, speech.” Id. at 1328. It further noted that, trademark. arguing that the disparagement clause under the government’s logic, Congress is contrary to the First Amendment and could pass a law prohibiting the copy- Supreme Court unconstitutionally vague. The Federal righting of works containing racial slurs, In September 2016, the Supreme Court Circuit initially affirmed the Trademark religious insults, ethnic caricatures, and granted certiorari. The first issue above Trial and Appeal Board’s decision. In a misogynistic images. Id. at 1351. will depend on whether the disparage- surprising change of course in December In response, the government filed a pe- ment clause restricts speech and, if so, 2015, however, the Federal Circuit, sitting tition for a writ of certiorari, requesting whether that speech is private or com- en banc, vacated the board’s decision and that the Supreme Court decide the sin- mercial. It is a bedrock principle of the remanded it for further proceedings. In gle issue of whether the disparagement First Amendment that the government re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321. The majority on clause violates the First Amendment. In may not restrict private speech because the Federal Circuit concluded that the an unusual move, Mr. Tam agreed that it disapproves of its message. Content- disparagement clause is facially inval- certiorari should be granted but expand- based and viewpoint-based burdens on id under the Free Speech Clause of the ed the questions presented as follows: private speech receive the Court’s highest VOL 43 | NO 2 | WINTER 2017 [CRD Art Credit] 13 level of scrutiny, and restrictions that for disparagement, which is reflected in Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The team prevent this type of speech are typically published administrative and judicial de- argued in its amicus brief in In re Tam overturned. If the disparagement clause cisions. It also argues that the USPTO ex- that the disparagement clause is uncon- restricts only commercial speech, how- aminers are not permitted to apply their stitutional and vague because, among ever, the Court would apply intermediate own subjective views; rather, they are other things, a mark, although disparag- scrutiny. directed to consider whether record evi- ing in the past, may not be so today. Pro- Mr. Tam argues that the speech at dence establishes that a substantial com- Football, Inc., argued that the USPTO issue is private and that the disparage- posite of the referenced group would find cancelled the Redskins marks not because ment clause imposes a significant con- the mark disparaging. they are disparaging to Native Americans tent-based and viewpoint-based burden The final issue above is whether THE today, but because they were decades ago on private speech. The government ar- SLANTS is disparaging, as used by the when the marks were first registered. gues that the disparagement clause does band. Mr. Tam argues that it is not be- As a matter of fact, when the dispar- not prohibit speech at all, nor does it pro- cause he uses the mark as a badge of pride agement clause took effect as part of the scribe any conduct or restrict the use of for Asians. The government argues that a Lanham Act in 1946, our society was in- any trademark. After all, the USPTO ar- trademark registration is not dependent deed very different. That was the year the gues, Mr. Tam has common-law trade- on the mark holder’s intended use; there- film It’s a Wonderful Life was released, mark protection and may continue to fore, regardless of Mr. Tam’s intent, Mr. Benjamin Spock’s child care classic was use the trademark, albeit without feder- Tam’s mark is disparaging to persons of published, and the baby boom generation al trademark registration. According to Asian descent. began, with society fixated on stability the government, Mr. Tam simply did not after the war and forming nuclear family meet the eligibility criteria for the federal units. Personal opinions and beliefs were trademark registration program; there- A decision that the not top priority for most, and companies fore, the government has a substantial branded and marketed carefully to appeal interest in declining its benefit. disparagement clause to this conservative era. We now live in a On the second issue, whether the dis- diverse and multicultural society where paragement clause is unconstitution- is unconstitutional personal views and ideas, however dif- ally vague, Mr. Tam argues that deter- ferent or radical, are routinely expressed mining whether a mark is disparaging would have immediate and instantly published via the Internet is highly subjective and that, as a result, or social media without much forethought the USPTO has produced a bewildering and far-reaching or consideration. Branding and marketing array of decisions granting or denying reflect this trend, with edgy and sensa- registrations seemingly at random. For effects. tional terms and phrases often used to instance, the USPTO has denied registra- capture the attention of the targeted pub- tion to HAVE YOU HEARD SATAN IS A lic regardless of whether they may offend REPUBLICAN but has allowed registra- A Supreme Court decision that the others.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O Ce
    Protecting Your Trademark ENHANCING YOUR RIGHTS THROUGH FEDERAL REGISTRATION Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O ce Published on February 2020 Our website resources For general information and links to Frequently trademark Asked Questions, processing timelines, the Trademark NEW [2] basics Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) , and FILERS the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual)[3]. Protecting Your Trademark Trademark Information Network (TMIN) Videos[4] Enhancing Your Rights Through Federal Registration Tools TESS Search pending and registered marks using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)[5]. File applications and other documents online using the TEAS Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)[6]. Check the status of an application and view and TSDR download application and registration records using Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR)[7]. Transfer (assign) ownership of a mark to another ASSIGNMENTS entity or change the owner name and search the Assignments database[8]. Visit the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)[9] TTAB online. United States Patent and Trademark Office An Agency of the United States Department of Commerce UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BASIC FACTS ABOUT TRADEMARKS CONTENTS MEET THE USPTO ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1 TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT, OR PATENT ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark, Patent and Copyright Information
    Trademark, Patent and Copyright Information What is a trademark? A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name. What is a service mark? A service mark is any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services. What is a certification mark? A certification mark is any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce with the owner’s permission by someone other than its owner, to certify regional or other geographic origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of someone's goods or services, or that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization. What is a collective mark? A collective mark is a trademark or service mark used, or intended to be used, in commerce, by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization, including a mark which indicates membership in a union, an association, or other organization. Basic Questions Do I have to register my trademark? No, but federal registration has several advantages, including notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark, a legal presumption of ownership nationwide, and the exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services set forth in the registration.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice
    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 93 TMR 1035
    Vol. 93 TMR 1035 RECONSIDERING INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION ON THE INTERNET By David M. Klein and Daniel C. Glazer∗ I. INTRODUCTION Courts developed the theory of initial interest confusion (or “pre-sale confusion”) to address the unauthorized use of a trademark in a manner that captures consumer attention, even though no sale is ultimately completed as a result of any initial confusion. During the last few years, the initial interest confusion doctrine has become a tool frequently used to resolve Internet- related disputes.1 Indeed, some courts have characterized initial interest confusion on the Internet as a “distinct harm, separately actionable under the Lanham Act.”2 This article considers whether the initial interest confusion doctrine is necessary in the context of the Internet. Courts typically have found actionable initial interest confusion when Internet users, seeking a trademark owner’s website, are diverted by identical or confusingly similar domain names to websites in competition with, or critical of, the trademark owner. A careful analysis of these decisions, however, leads to the conclusion that a distinct initial interest confusion theory may be unnecessary to resolve cases involving the unauthorized use of a trademark as a domain name. In fact, traditional notions of trademark infringement law and multi-factor likelihood of confusion tests may adequately address the balancing of interests required in cases where courts must define the boundaries of trademark owners’ protection against the use of their marks in the domain names of competing websites. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)3 and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)4 provide additional protection against the unauthorized use of domain names that dilute famous marks or evidence a bad ∗ Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Conservation: How Can the Regulation of Bioprospecting
    N°06/13 JUNE 2013 | BIODIVERSITY Biodiversity conservation: How can the regulation of bioprospecting under the Nagoya Protocol make a difference? Claudio Chiarolla, Renaud Lapeyre, Romain Pirard (IDDRI) THE REGULATION OF BIOPROSPECTING: WHAT IS IT? AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? The need to protect biodiversity and to promote fairness in the use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge has engendered one of the most contentious debates of the 21st century between devel- oped and developing countries. This debate has fundamental implications for the way in which basic and applied research on genetic resources and biodiversity is conducted and its results are made available between and within peoples and societies. Therefore, the regulation of bioprospecting –i.e. “the search for plant and animal species from which medicinal drugs and other commercially valuable compounds can be obtained”– not only tells stories about biodiversity conservation, but also about food security, global health, intellectual property, indigenous peoples, equity, justice and human rights. NEW PERSPECTIVES: BIOPROSPECTING CONTRACTS AS MARKET- BASED INSTRUMENTS In a context of financial constraint, MBIs are seen as a potential tool to help foster biodiversity conservation. As private contracts between two (or more) parties (theoretically Coasean agreements), bioprospecting contracts could be more efficient than command-and-control regulations aimed at biodiversity conservation. Aiming to regulate bioprospecting, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Shar- ing (ABS), adopted in 2010, should help to stop the misappropriation This article is based on research that has of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (known as received a financial support from the French ‘biopiracy’), while providing legal certainty for public and private users government in the framework of the programme of such resources.
    [Show full text]
  • So Scandalous the CASE: Various Cases US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 15 December 2017
    Legal update: United States So scandalous THE CASE: Various cases US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 15 December 2017 Douglas Sharrott and Lisa M Mottes explain that while vulgar trademarks are now registrable in the US, they may still be refused abroad US courts in 2017 demonstrated when the trademark owner seeks to register and whether the trademark will contravene trademarks that may be considered the same mark abroad? them. If so, applicants should determine morally reprehensible can now be Unlike the US, most countries still whether that country protects free speech and federally registered. Within months, have morality-based registration bars. consider whether there is a basis to challenge the scandalous, immoral and disparaging For example, trademark laws in: Canada these bars as a violation of free speech, as was trademark registration bars were chipped prohibit “scandalous, obscene or immoral” done here in Tam and Brunetti. out of Lanham Act Section 2(a) by both the trademarks;5 Australia prohibit “scandalous Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) and matter”;6 Japan, the EU, France, Germany, Footnotes the US Court of Appeals for the Federal UK and Switzerland prohibit trademarks that 1. 15 USC Section 1052(a). Circuit (CAFC). While this vindicates the First are contrary to public policy/order or morality;7 2. 137 S Ct 1744 (2017). Amendment, trademark applicants should not India prohibits scandalous or obscene matter;8 3. 877 F.3d 1330 (Fed Cir 2017). The US had until expect the same treatment in foreign countries and Argentina prohibit trademarks that are 12 February 2018 to file a petition for rehearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Denying Trademark for Scandalous Speech
    Denying Trademark for Scandalous Speech Ned Snow* Recently in Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional. The disparagement clause prevented registration of disparaging trademarks — i.e., marks that were offensively disparaging toward individuals — such that the clause could have induced mark owners to refrain from speaking offensive views. The potential for self-censorship led the Court to recognize a First Amendment violation. Importantly, the Justices unanimously agreed that the clause was viewpoint discriminatory. Viewpoint discrimination was damning. This central point of Tam calls into question another clause in the Lanham Act — the scandalous clause — which prevents registration of marks that are offensive to the public’s sense of decency and propriety. Simply put, does Tam suggest the unconstitutionality of the scandalous clause? The Federal Circuit recently answered this question in In re Brunetti, holding that in view of Tam, the scandalous clause violated the First Amendment. This Essay concludes otherwise. The Essay argues that the scandalous clause does not violate the First Amendment if the clause is interpreted as restricting only sexually-explicit and vulgar content. In particular, this interpretation implies that the clause is viewpoint neutral because viewpoint discrimination entails the government targeting content that communicates an opposable view — i.e., an opinion or assertion. Content that is sexually explicit or vulgar does not communicate an opposable view: sexually-explicit content exists to stimulate a sexual response; vulgar content exists to evoke emotive force. Neither represents an opinion that may be disagreed with. Indeed, unlike in Tam, the * Copyright © 2018 Ned Snow.
    [Show full text]
  • Logo & Trademark Usage Guide
    LOGO & TRADEMARK USAGE GUIDE 2 ABOUT THX Founded by legendary filmmaker George Lucas in 1983, THX and their partners provide premium entertainment experiences in the cinema, in the home and on the go. THX develops audio-video and environmental designs, technologies, products and specifications to ensure an artist’s vision is truthfully delivered to audiences worldwide. For more information on THX please visit www.thx.com. 3 CONTENTS 1. TRADEMARK GUIDELINES 2. GENERAL DESIGN RULES 3. HOME THEATER ADVISOR 4. HOME THEATER INTEGRATOR 5. HOME THEATER ADVANCED INTEGRATOR 6. VIDEO CALIBRATION 1 7. VIDEO CALIBRATION 2 8. HOME THEATER 1 (LEGACY COURSE) 9. HOME THEATER 2 (LEGACY COURSE) 10. FOR USE BY BUSINESSES WITH CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ON STAFF 11. CONTACTS 4 1. TRADEMARK GUIDELINES The following directives apply to any THX trademark in print or electronic form and in any published materials, including websites: 1. Only individuals who have successfully completed the 8. The THX word trademarks and logo trademarks should AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS: requirements for becoming a THX Certified Professional never be altered in any way. THX requires that THX Certified Professionals sign a license may use the trademarks displayed in this guide. agreement with THX prior to use of any THX trademarks. 9. The symbol ® or ™ should be used to signify trademarks. All uses of THX trademarks and service marks must be 2. The trademarks may not be used to suggest that other ® signifies that the mark is registered in the U.S. Patent individuals within an organization are THX Certified and Trademark Office and/or other countries. The ™ is in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of such Professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing Paper Trademark Dilution Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc
    Briefing Paper Trademark Dilution Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. of Travel Development I. Introduction In 1996, Congress supplemented existing federal trademark law by passing the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”), adopted into the Lanham Act as § 43(c).1 The concept of trademark “dilution” is distinct from the more familiar concept of trademark “infringement.” Based largely on consumer protection, a trademark infringement claim generally requires a plaintiff to show that use of the junior mark is likely to cause confusion between its product and the product of the infringing mark. In contrast, a trademark dilution claim focuses on the “whittling away” of the “uniqueness” of a trademark and the resulting loss of economic power caused by other uses of that mark, regardless of whether such use is likely to cause confusion.2 Trademark dilution represents a significant expansion of traditional trademark law, and a shift from a consumer protection model to a property rights model.3 Prior to the adoption of the FTDA, more than half of the states had already adopted some form of trademark dilution protection. However, unlike most state statutes, which allow a dilution claim if a junior mark is “likely to cause dilution,” the language of the FTDA is limited to use that “causes dilution.” Taken literally, this difference in language suggests a more limited protection for dilution under federal law. This was the issue addressed by the Fourth Circuit in Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Division Of Travel 1 Lanham Act § 43(c), 15 U.S.C.A.
    [Show full text]
  • UDRP Versus ACPA: Choosing the Right Tool to Challenge Cybersquatting by Connie L
    UDRP Versus ACPA: Choosing the Right Tool to Challenge Cybersquatting by connie l. ellerbach One of the most frequent sources of conflict on the Internet has of bad faith can be easily demonstrated. Complex disputes, resulted from the unauthorized registration and use of domain such as determining which of two users has superior rights to names containing other parties’ trademarks or company names, the mark contained in a domain, or where there are complicated a practice commonly referred to as cybersquatting. Fortunately, evidentiary issues, are beyond the scope of the UDRP. trademark law has evolved to offer a variety of increasingly Another drawback of UDRP proceedings is that due to the focused and effective remedies to address such abuses, two lack of evidentiary guidelines, lack of requirement to follow of the most recent of which are: the Internet Corporation for precedent, and the varying experience and political philosophy Assigned Names and Numbers’ Uniform Domain Name Dispute of the panelists, rulings can be unpredictable and inconsistent Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), and the federal Anticybersquatting with previous decisions addressing similar fact patterns. Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). It is important that Nowhere has this been more true than in celebrity domain name trademark owners appreciate the strengths and weaknesses disputes. Compare Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, Case No. of each when selecting the appropriate forum to challenge the D2000-1210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (awarding Ms. Roberts the registration of domains containing their trademarks. <juliaroberts.com> domain based on her common law service A. The UDRP mark rights in her name) with Reverend Dr.
    [Show full text]