DOCSLIB.ORG

Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law Uli Widmaier

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law Uli Widmaier Hofstra Law Review Volume 33 | Issue 2 Article 7 2004 Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law Uli Widmaier Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Widmaier, Uli (2004) "Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 33: Iss. 2, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol33/iss2/7 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Widmaier: Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law USE, LIABILITY, AND THE STRUCTURE OF TRADEMARK LAW Uli Widmaier* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 604 II. THE STRUCTURE OF TRADEMARK LAW ........................................ 610 A . A ttenuated Rights ............................................................... 610 B. The Use-Contingent Nature of Trademark Rights- A H istorical Perspective ..................................................... 613 C. The Use Requirement and the Modem Lanham Act .......... 618 1. The Statutory Definition of Trademark Use ................ 618 2. Use and Infringement Claims ...................................... 620 3. Trademark Use: A Necessary Condition for Applying the Lanham Act ............................................ 621 D. Use and Trademark Rights ................................................. 624 1. Use and Plaintiffs Rights in a Mark ............................ 624 2. Use and Defendant's Infringement of a Mark .............. 626 E. "Use" or "Commerce"? ............................. ......................... 634 III. THE RISE AND FALL OF THE LAW OF THE HORSE: TRADEMARK LAW AND THE INTERNET ..................................... 640 A. Novel Facts and Legislative Reactions .............................. 640 B. Brookfield, Metatags, and the Demise of Trademark Use.. 642 C. The Evolution of the Law of the Horse .............................. 656 D. Pinnacle and Revolution: The Recent Keyword Cases ...... 675 1. The W henU Cases ....................................................... 677 2. The Ninth Circuit's Decision in Playboy v. Netscap e .......................................................................700 * Partner, Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP; lecturer in law, University of Chicago Law School. Thanks to Chad Doellinger, Stacey Dogan, Eric Goldman, David Hilliard, and Janet Widmaier for their helpful comments. The views expressed in this article are the author's and should not be imputed to his law firm or its clients. Published by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law, 2004 1 Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 33, Iss. 2 [2004], Art. 7 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW (Vol. 33:603 E. Phone Numbers, and Trademark Use: Putting the Horse out of its M isery ................................................................. 703 IV . C ONCLU SION ................................................................................ 707 I. INTRODUCTION Trademark law is in trouble. Six years ago, Professor Lemley diagnosed the "death of common sense"1 in the courts' interpretations of the modem Lanham Act.2 Unfortunately, his assessment has proven only too true. Instead of a unified and well-integrated body of doctrine sensibly covering all aspects of commerce, the courts have over the past several years created a specialized "law of the horse" that applies to prevalent fact patterns arising in the Internet context.3 This species of mutant trademark law4 has "loosed trademark law from its traditional economic moorings" and drastically, unjustifiably extended its reach.5 As Professor Landes and Judge Posner famously conclude, traditional trademark law is "a rationally designed system for minimizing consumer search costs."'6 In contrast, the courts' current tendency to overprotect communicative symbols of all kinds via trademark law impoverishes human discourse and leads inevitably to collisions with the First Amendment.7 In order for trademark law to fulfill its function as a search cost minimizer and to avoid interference with speech interests,8 trademark law's basic doctrinal structure of 1. Mark A. Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense, 108 YALE L.J. 1687 (1999) [hereinafter Lemley, Modern Lanham Act]. 2. Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. (2000): 3. Frank H. Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, 1996 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 207, 208 (1996). 4. The phrase "mutant trademark law" is an adaptation of language from Dastar Corporation v. 20th Century Fox Film Corporation,in which the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit's extension of the Lanham Act's unfair competition provision (section 43(a)) into the realm of creative works such as movies constituted a "species of mutant [and hence unconstitutional] copyright law." 539 U.S. 23, 34 (2003). 5. Lemley, Modern Lanham Act, supranote 1, at 1688. 6. WILLIAM M. LANDES & RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 422 (2003) [hereinafter LANDES & POSNER, ECONOMIC STRUCTURE]. 7. See Lemley, Modern Lanham Act, supra note 1, at 1711-13. It is, of course, well established that First Amendment protection extends in principle to all communicative symbols used by humans. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 420 (1989) (holding that burning the American flag is constitutionally protected as an expressive act). 8. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc., v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) (Kozinski, J.) (arguing that traditional trademark law-in contrast to trademark dilution law- possesses "a built-in First Amendment compass" making it "wholly consistent with the theory of the http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol33/iss2/7 2 Widmaier: Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law 2004] USE, LIABILITY & STRUCTURE OF TRADEMARK LA W attenuated, perception-based rights must be preserved. But that structure is under severe attack. A solid and nearly unchallenged line of cases dating back to 1996 strikes at the heart of trademark law by negating its central dogma, which holds that a trademark is any "'symbol' or 9 'device' . capable of carrying meaning" that serves as a "commercial signature [placed] upon the merchandise or the package in which it is sold." 0 This concept is statutorily enshrined in the Lanham Act-the modem codification of trademark law-under the rubric "use in commerce."" It has traditionally effectuated a rigorous separation between "a right in gross or at large, like a statutory copyright or a patent for an invention"' 2 on the one hand, and the legal protection of the "psychological function of symbols"'13 on the other hand. Put another way, a symbol enjoys trademark protection only insofar as it possesses "commercial magnetism" in the minds of consumers.14 This crucial limitation on trademark rights has been obliterated to a substantial degree by decisions-most prominently by the Ninth and Seventh Circuits in decisions such as Brookfield,"5 Promatek,16 and Playboy,7 First Amendment, which does not protect commercial fraud"). Interestingly, this decision, and a similar decision in Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, which was decided a year later, may have made trademark law considerably more supportive of speech interests by at least partially implementing the "expressive genericity" doctrine proposed by Professor Cooper Dreyfuss as a remedy for the law's inadequate understanding of "the evocative significance of trademarks." Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation, 65 NOTRE DAME L. REv. 397, 398-99 (1990); Mattel, Inc., v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Walking Mountain court explained, quoting heavily from MCA, "when marks transcend their identifying purpose and enter public discourse and become an integral part of our vocabulary, they assume[ ] a role outside the bounds of trademark law. Where a mark assumes such cultural significance, First Amendment protections come into play. In these situations, the trademark owner does not have the right to control public discourse whenever the public imbues his mark with a meaning beyond its source-identifying function." 353 F.3d at 807" (citations and quotation marks omitted). In other words, these courts have, at least to some degree, created a doctrinal accommodation for Professor Litman's insight that trademarks are "also now metaphors with meanings their proprietors would not have chosen." Jessica Litman, Breakfast with Batman: The Public Interest in the Advertising Age, 108 YALE L.J. 1717, 1733 (1999). 9. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods., 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995). 10. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 98 (1918). 11. 15U.S.C.§ 1127 (2001). 12. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. at 97. 13. Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203, 205 (1942). 14. Id. at 205, Under modem trademark law, anything that is capable of communicating with consumers can in principle be a trademark. This includes words, slogans, sounds, colors, designs, product configurations, product packaging-any, symbol, in short, that may be endowed with commercial magnetism. See Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 163-64. 15. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entm't Group, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999). 16. Promatek Indus.,
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, and the Decline in Sharing of Famous Brand Names: an Introduction and Empirical Study
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2011 Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, and the Decline in Sharing of Famous Brand Names: An Introduction and Empirical Study Robert Brauneis The George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Paul J. Heald Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert Brauneis & Paul J. Heald, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, and the Decline in Sharing of Famous Brand Names: An Introduction and Empirical Study, 59 Buff. J. Int'l L. 141 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK DILUTION, AND THE DECLINE IN SHARING OF FAMOUS BRAND NAMES: AN INTRODUCTION AND EMPIRICAL STUDY ROBERT BRAUNEIS* PAUL HEALD** Many famous brand names have historically been shared among dozens or even hundreds of different companies.1 Courts and commentators often cite well-known examples of sharing like Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets,2 or United Airlines and United Van Lines,3 but the list of companies sharing these brand names and many others is much, much longer. Trademark infringement law has traditionally accommodated brand-name sharing through doctrines that limit protection to closely related goods and to actual trading areas.4 Modern developments in infringement law, however, have challenged those doctrines,5 and trademark dilution legislation is arguably based on the theory that some brand names are harmed by, and should be protected against, any sharing at * Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School.
    [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]
  • Criminal Trademark Enforcement and the Problem of Inevitable Creep
    Criminal Trademark Enforcement and the Problem of Inevitable Creep Mark P. McKenna* Trademark owners have long been able to enforce their rights through a federal cause of action against unauthorized uses of their marks.1 Private enforcement, however, is now only part of the story. The federal government also acts on behalf of mark owners, both seizing infringing and counterfeit goods at the border and prosecuting counterfeiters under federal criminal law.2 The idea of criminal penalties for certain trademark violations is not new – indeed, Congress enacted criminal penalties as early as 1876, just a few years after it passed the very first federal trademark statute.3 But mark owners had to be content with civil remedies for most of the history of American trademark law – Congress would not again enact criminal trademark penalties for more than 100 years after the Supreme Court struck down the 1876 Act in the Trademark Cases.4 Thus, for all practical purposes, criminal enforcement is a modern development, and one that has received little scholarly attention. This essay focuses initially on the federal Trademark Counterfeiting Act (TCA). That statute was intended to increase the penalties associated with the most egregious instances of trademark infringement – those involving the use of an identical mark for the * Professor of Law and Notre Dame Presidential Fellow, Notre Dame Law School. Thanks to Jeanne Fromer, Irina Manta, and Chris Sprigman for helpful discussions of the ideas in this paper. 1 The first federal trademark statute was passed in 1870. Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Most Trusted IP Partner
    Overview of Indian Trademark System In India, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) and the Rules there under guide the process of registration and enforcement of rights relating to trade marks. The Indian regime affords protection to registered as well as unregistered marks. In case of misuse of a registered mark, the right holder can initiate an infringement action against the violating party. For misuse of unregistered marks, the right holder is entitled to claim protection under the law of passing off. For succeeding in an action for passing off, the Plaintiff must meet these threefold criteria – (1) established goodwill or reputation of the Plaintiff attached to the relevant goods or services under its mark, (2) misrepresentation by the Defendant which is likely to deceive public in to believing that the Defendant’s goods/ services emanate from the Plaintiff and (3) damage suffered or likely to be suffered by the Plaintiff. It is important to remember that Indian regime affords high importance to prior use. Therefore, an infringement action on the basis of a prior registered mark by a registered proprietor may not succeed against a prior user. Trans-border reputation also holds huge weightage but, a party relying on trans-border reputation must be able to prove the acquisition of this reputation in India before the date of adoption and use of the relevant mark by the other party in India. The reliefs which a court may grant in a suit for infringement or passing off include injunction, and at the option of the Plaintiff either damages or an account of profits together with or without any order for delivery up of the infringing labels and marks for destruction or erasure.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore
    Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore IP Newsletter We are delighted to share with you the latest edition of our May 2015 Intellectual Property newsletter covering the latest developments in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We trust you will find this newsletter useful. If you would like any further information, please contact the team in your jurisdiction. Best regards, Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow (Singapore) Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners (Indonesia) In This Issue Wong & Partners (Malaysia) Recent Developments In: Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Indonesia Latest News Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of For more information, please Operational License and Evaluation of Collecting contact: Societies Kuala Lumpur Chew Kherk Ying Pursuant to the enactment of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Partner +60 3 2298 7933 Copyright ("Copyright Law"), the Ministry of Law and Human [email protected] Rights ("MOLHR") has issued Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of Operational Singapore License and Evaluation of Collecting Management Society Andy Leck Managing Principal, ("Regulation No. 29"). Tel: +65 6434 2525 [email protected] The Copyright Law urges authors, copyright holders and Jakarta performers to be members of collecting societies in order to Daru Lukiantono manage and collect royalties from the commercial use of their Partner copyright and neighboring rights from the public. The Tel: +62 21 2960 8588 [email protected] Copyright Law indicates that collecting societies should be non-profit in nature and obtain operational licenses from the MOLHR by fulfilling certain requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 Chapter 4 Similarity of the Marks § 4:1 Similarity in Context § 4
    Chapter 4 Similarity of the Marks § 4:1 Similarity in Context § 4:2 Degree of Similarity § 4:3 The Three-Part Test: Sound, Meaning, Appearance § 4:3.1 Commercial Impression § 4:3.2 Sound § 4:3.3 Meaning [A] Word Versus Picture [B] Foreign Word Versus English Word 10/04/17 [C] Foreign Word Versus Foreign Word § 4:3.4 Appearance [A] Design Versus Design [B] Letters Versus Letters [C] Different Word/Similar Design § 4:4 Consider the Marks As Would the Relevant Public § 4:5 Consider the Marks Singly § 4:6 Weigh Similarities More Heavily than Differences § 4:7 Compare the Marks in Their Entireties § 4:8 Consider the Marks in Their Settings § 4:9 Give Dominant Portions of Composite Marks Greater Weight § 4:9.1 Family Features § 4:9.2 Words/Designs Proofs § 4:9.3 Letters/Designs § 4:9.4 Effect of Registration Disclaimers § 4:10 Marks Having Portions in Common § 4:10.1 One Mark Incorporating Another § 4:10.2 Common Portion Comparatively Strong, Dominant § 4:10.3 Common Portion Weak, Recessive § 4:10.4 Common Portion Generic or Functional § 4:10.5 Given Name/Surname 2nd § 4:10.6 Marks Suggesting an Association § 4:10.7 Marks with Source Modifiers § 4:10.8 Marks with Geographic Modifiers (Kirkpatrick, Rel. #9, 10/17) 4–1 § 4:1 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION § 4:11 Reversal of Elements § 4:12 The Familiar Versus the Unfamiliar § 4:13 Parody § 4:14 Combining Complainant’s Marks § 4:1 Similarity in Context Similarity of the marks is an analytical factor in every court.1 (See section 2:4.) If this is the factor “without which the others have no probative value,”2 then it is “the most important consideration, for it is in [the] similarity [of the marks] that the roots of the confusion lie.”3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Archive and Compressed [Edit]
    Archive and compressed [edit] Main article: List of archive formats • .?Q? – files compressed by the SQ program • 7z – 7-Zip compressed file • AAC – Advanced Audio Coding • ace – ACE compressed file • ALZ – ALZip compressed file • APK – Applications installable on Android • AT3 – Sony's UMD Data compression • .bke – BackupEarth.com Data compression • ARC • ARJ – ARJ compressed file • BA – Scifer Archive (.ba), Scifer External Archive Type • big – Special file compression format used by Electronic Arts for compressing the data for many of EA's games • BIK (.bik) – Bink Video file. A video compression system developed by RAD Game Tools • BKF (.bkf) – Microsoft backup created by NTBACKUP.EXE • bzip2 – (.bz2) • bld - Skyscraper Simulator Building • c4 – JEDMICS image files, a DOD system • cab – Microsoft Cabinet • cals – JEDMICS image files, a DOD system • cpt/sea – Compact Pro (Macintosh) • DAA – Closed-format, Windows-only compressed disk image • deb – Debian Linux install package • DMG – an Apple compressed/encrypted format • DDZ – a file which can only be used by the "daydreamer engine" created by "fever-dreamer", a program similar to RAGS, it's mainly used to make somewhat short games. • DPE – Package of AVE documents made with Aquafadas digital publishing tools. • EEA – An encrypted CAB, ostensibly for protecting email attachments • .egg – Alzip Egg Edition compressed file • EGT (.egt) – EGT Universal Document also used to create compressed cabinet files replaces .ecab • ECAB (.ECAB, .ezip) – EGT Compressed Folder used in advanced systems to compress entire system folders, replaced by EGT Universal Document • ESS (.ess) – EGT SmartSense File, detects files compressed using the EGT compression system. • GHO (.gho, .ghs) – Norton Ghost • gzip (.gz) – Compressed file • IPG (.ipg) – Format in which Apple Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • A Masterclass in Trademark's Descriptive Fair Use Defense
    Akron Law Review Volume 52 Issue 3 Intellectual Property Edition Article 4 2019 A Masterclass in Trademark's Descriptive Fair Use Defense Deborah R. Gerhardt Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Gerhardt, Deborah R. (2019) "A Masterclass in Trademark's Descriptive Fair Use Defense," Akron Law Review: Vol. 52 : Iss. 3 , Article 4. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol52/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Gerhardt: Fair Use Defense A Masterclass in Trademark’s Descriptive Fair Use Defense Deborah R. Gerhardt* Abstract........................................................................... 787 I. Introduction ........................................................... 788 II. The Pill Pockets Story ............................................ 789 II. The Descriptive Fair Use Defense ........................... 791 III. Strategic Lessons on Each Descriptive Fair Use Ele ment ................................................................
    [Show full text]