DOCSLIB.ORG

The Trademark Reporter®

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Trademark Reporter® (USPS 636-080) Copyright 2012, by the International Trademark Association All Rights Reserved Vol. 102 January–February, 2012 No. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS UNITED STATES ANNUAL REVIEW The Sixty-Fourth Year of Administration of the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act of 1946 Theodore H. Davis, Jr. , and John L. Welch Introduction .................................................................................. 1 Part I. Likelihood of Confusion ................................................. 6 A. Likelihood of Confusion Found ............................................... 6 B. Likelihood of Confusion Not Found ........................................ 15 Part II. Ex Parte Cases ............................................................... 18 A. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ........ 18 1. Inherent Distinctiveness ................................................... 18 B. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ....................................... 20 1. Inherent Distinctiveness ................................................... 20 2. Acquired Distinctiveness .................................................. 21 3. Genericness ....................................................................... 23 4. Failure to Function ........................................................... 27 5. Consent of Living Person .................................................. 31 6. Primarily Merely a Surname ............................................ 33 7. Geographically Deceptive Misdescriptiveness ................. 34 8. Functionality ..................................................................... 36 This issue of THE TRADEMARK REPORTER® (TMR) should be cited as 102 TMR ___ (2012). 9. Consent to Register ............................................................ 38 10. Specimens of Use ................................................................ 39 Part III. Inter Partes Cases ............................................................ 41 A. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ........................................ 41 1. Fraud ................................................................................... 41 2. Dilution ............................................................................... 43 3. Lack of Bona Fide Intent .................................................... 46 4. Functionality ....................................................................... 48 5. Acquired Distinctiveness .................................................... 51 6. Priority of Use ..................................................................... 52 7. Lawful Use .......................................................................... 53 8. Assignability of Intent-to-Use Application ........................ 54 9. Effect of Third-Party Consent Agreement ......................... 55 10. Ownership of Pleaded Registration ................................... 56 11. Standing for Foreign Trademark Owner ........................... 56 12. Partial Cancellation or Disclaimer of a Generic Term ..... 58 13. Cancellation for Noncompliance with Regulatory Requirements ...................................................................... 60 14. Procedural Issues ................................................................ 61 a. Issues Tried by Implied Consent .................................. 61 b. Claim Preclusion ............................................................ 62 c. Issue Preclusion ............................................................. 65 d. Stay of Proceedings ........................................................ 66 e. Admissibility of Evidence .............................................. 68 (1) Hearsay Objections ................................................. 68 (2) Pre-Litigation Surveys ............................................ 68 (3) Testimony Based on Witness’s Experience ............ 69 (4) Testimony from Prior Proceedings ......................... 69 (5) Introducing Registrations into Evidence ............... 70 (6) No Probative Value for Non-English Documents .. 70 (7) Adequacy of Pre-Trial Disclosures ......................... 71 (8) Documents Not Produced During Discovery ......... 72 f. Pleading in Madrid Protocol Cases ............................... 72 (1) Completion of the ESTTA Form ............................. 72 (2) Amending a Notice of Opposition ........................... 73 g. Affirmative Defenses ..................................................... 74 h. TTAB Review of Procedural Errors .............................. 75 15. Motion Practice ................................................................... 76 a. Motion to Compel Discovery Responses ....................... 76 b. Motion to Exclude Witness ............................................ 77 c. Motion to Exclude Expert Witness’s Anticipated Testimony ....................................................................... 77 d. Motion to Amend First Use Dates ................................ 78 e. Motion for Involuntary Dismissal ................................. 78 Part IV. Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition in the Courts of General Jurisdiction ................................................ 79 A. Establishing Protectable Trademark and Service Mark Rights ........................................................................................ 79 1. The Effect of Federal Trademark Registrations on the Mark Validity Inquiry ........................................................ 79 2. Proving Use in Commerce .................................................. 84 a. The Nature and Quantity of Use in Commerce Necessary to Establish Protectable Rights ................... 84 b. Prior Use Through Tacking ........................................... 87 c. Use-Based Geographic Rights ....................................... 88 3. Proving Distinctiveness ...................................................... 88 a. Distinctiveness of Word Marks ..................................... 88 (1) Generic Terms and Designations ........................... 88 (2) Descriptive Marks ................................................... 93 (3) Suggestive Marks .................................................... 97 (4) Arbitrary Marks ...................................................... 102 (5) Fanciful or Coined Marks ....................................... 103 b. Distinctiveness of Nontraditional Marks ..................... 103 c. Secondary Meaning Determinations ............................ 108 (1) Cases Finding Secondary Meaning ........................ 108 (2) Cases Declining to Find Secondary Meaning ........ 112 (3) Meaning to Be Determined .................................... 119 d. Survey Evidence of Distinctiveness .............................. 123 4. Proving Nonfunctionality ................................................... 125 a. Utilitarian Nonfunctionality ......................................... 125 b. Aesthetic Nonfunctionality ............................................ 130 B. Establishing Liability ............................................................... 134 1. Proving Actionable Use in Commerce by Defendants ...... 134 a. Cases Finding Use in Commerce by Defendants ......... 134 b. Cases Declining to Find Use in Commerce by Defendants ..................................................................... 136 c. Use in Commerce by Defendants to Be Determined .... 139 2. Likelihood of Confusion ...................................................... 139 a. Factors Considered ........................................................ 139 (1) The First Circuit ..................................................... 139 (2) The Second Circuit .................................................. 140 (3) The Third Circuit .................................................... 140 (4) The Fourth Circuit .................................................. 141 (5) The Fifth Circuit ..................................................... 141 (6) The Sixth Circuit .................................................... 141 (7) The Seventh Circuit ................................................ 142 (8) The Eighth Circuit .................................................. 142 (9) The Ninth Circuit .................................................... 143 (10) The Tenth Circuit ................................................... 143 (11) The Eleventh Circuit .............................................. 143 (12) The District of Columbia Circuit ............................ 144 b. Findings and Holdings .................................................. 144 (1) Likelihood of Confusion: Preliminary Relief ......... 144 (2) Likelihood of Confusion: As a Matter of Law ........ 152 (3) Likelihood of Confusion: After Trial ...................... 156 (4) Likelihood of Confusion to Be Determined ............ 159 (5) Unlikelihood of Confusion: Preliminary Relief ..... 167 (6) Unlikelihood of Confusion: As a Matter of Law .... 174 (7) Unlikelihood of Confusion: After Trial .................. 181 c. Exhaustion of Rights and Diverted Goods ................... 183 d. Survey Evidence of Actual or Likely Confusion ........... 183 e. Effect of Disclaimers ...................................................... 189 3. Counterfeiting Matters ....................................................... 189 4. Dilution ............................................................................... 191 a. Proving Mark Fame and Distinctiveness ..................... 191 b. Proving Actual or Likely Dilution ................................
Recommended publications
  • Defenses to Trademark Infringement: Fair & Nominative

    Defenses to Trademark Infringement: Fair & Nominative

    CHAPTER EIGHT Defenses to Trademark Infringement: Fair & Nominative Use We have already seen many of the internal limitations of trademark law. Its rights are constrained from their creation—ownership not of the word, or the image, but rather the word or image used in relationship to a particular good or service. They are constrained by the requirements of use in commerce, not only before the rights are obtained, but as a con- tinuing requirement for the right to exist. They are constrained by the requirement of use as a mark—both that the signals must be deliberately sent by the producer as trademarks— not mottos or mission statements—and in the distinctiveness, acquired or inherent, perceived by the consumer. They are constrained by the limitations that trademarks can never be over functional features of the product; TrafFix provides one obvious example, but so does the discussion in Qualitex of all the occasions on which color cannot be owned, such as green for farm equipment, given that fashion-conscious farmers may want their tractors to match. They are constrained by the limitation of genericide, or “genericity.” Even if the producer created an entirely new name—fanciful and arbitrary—that mark will be lost if it becomes the generic term for the goods or services involved. Finally, they are constrained by the reach—however indeterminate—of the requirements of the First Amendment, to allow speech and commentary about the mark, and of the requirements of efficient competitive consumer communication in the marketplace. In this chapter, we focus on two particular defenses, fair use and nominative use, which reflect these limitations but also illustrate their operation in action, particularly in the context of new business models and new technologies such as the internet.
  • Sorting out "Fair Use" and "Likelihood of Confusion" in Trademark Law

    Sorting out "Fair Use" and "Likelihood of Confusion" in Trademark Law

    Sorting out "fair use" and "likelihood of confusion" in trademark law Author: Stephanie M. Greene Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/1471 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Published in American Business Law Journal, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 43-77, Spring 2006 Use of this resource is governed by the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States" (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/) American Business Law Journal Volume 43, Issue 1, 43-77, Spring 2006 Sorting Out "Fair Use" and "Likelihood of Confusion" in Trademark Law Stephanie M. Greene* I. INTRODUCTION A seller may unwittingly provoke a trademark infringement suit merely by using language in advertising or on a label that describes his product.1 Although descriptive terms, in general, are not protected by trademark law, such terms may receive protection if they have acquired secondary meaning.2 If the mark has been registered and has been in commercial use *Assistant Professor, Wallace E. Carroll School of Management, Boston College. 1The Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, commonly known as the Lanham Act, defines a trademark as "any word, name, symbol, or device" used by a person "to distinguish his or her goods ... from those manufactured or sold by others to indicate the source of the goods... ." 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2000). 2SEE Graeme B. Dinwoodie, The Seventh Annual Honorable Helen Wilson Nies Memorial Lecture in Intellectual Property Law: The 'Trademark Jurisprudence of the Rehnquist Court, 8 MARQ. INTELL.
  • Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny Vanessa P

    Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny Vanessa P

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Marquette University Law School Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 13 | Issue 2 Article 3 Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny Vanessa P. Rollins Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, Michigan Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Vanessa P. Rollins, Trademark Fair Use: Braun® Versus the Bunny, 13 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 285 (2009). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol13/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ROLLINS FINAL FORMATTED 5-28-09 REVISED 6-18-09 6/19/2009 2:54 PM TRADEMARK FAIR USE: BRAUN® VERSUS THE BUNNY VANESSA P. ROLLINS* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 285 I. TRADEMARKS—LOGOS AND PRODUCT DESIGN ........................ 289 A. Descriptive Fair Use .................................................................. 291 II. NOMINATIVE FAIR USE ................................................................... 295 III. APPLICATION OF NOMINATIVE FAIR USE BEYOND PLAIN- TEXT WORD MARKS ........................................................................ 302 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 305 INTRODUCTION The Author was rather tickled (no pun intended), by a story out of the United Kingdom concerning the confluence of two seemingly unrelated products—a vibrating toothbrush and plastic sex-toy shaped like a bunny.1 The plastic bunny was designed specifically to work with a vibrating toothbrush, turning it into a vibrating bunny-shaped sex-toy.
  • Trademark Nominative Fair Use: the Relevance of the "New Kids on the Block Factors" After the Supreme Court KP Permanent Make-Up V

    Trademark Nominative Fair Use: the Relevance of the "New Kids on the Block Factors" After the Supreme Court KP Permanent Make-Up V

    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 16 Issue 1 Fall 2005 Article 2 Trademark Nominative Fair Use: The Relevance of the "New Kids on the Block Factors" After the Supreme Court KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression Decision Carl Regelmann Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Carl Regelmann, Trademark Nominative Fair Use: The Relevance of the "New Kids on the Block Factors" After the Supreme Court KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression Decision, 16 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2005) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol16/iss1/2 This Lead Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Regelmann: Trademark Nominative Fair Use: The Relevance of the "New Kids on TRADEMARK NOMINATIVE FAIR USE: THE RELEVANCE OF THE "NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK FACTORS" AFTER THE SUPREME COURT KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP V. LASTING IMPRESSION DECISION By Carl Regelmann* I. INTRODUCTION In December of 2004, the Supreme Court announced in KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I,Inc., that a likelihood of confusion did not bar the affirmative defense of descriptive trademark fair use under §33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act.' This interest in descriptive fair use by the nation's highest court encouraged a number of commentators to discuss the issue in depth.2 However, in the Court's decision on the future of * J.D.
  • I Trademark Classification

    I Trademark Classification

    APPENDIX I I Trademark Classification • Goods o Class 1 Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; unprocessed artificial resins, unprocessed plastics; manures; fire extinguishing compositions; tempering and soldering prepara­ tions; chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs; tanning substances; adhesives used in industry. o Class 2 Paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants; raw natural resins; metals in foil and powder form for painters, decorators, printers and arts. o Class 3 Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices. o Class 4 Industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing, wetting and binding compositions; fuels (including motor spirit) and illuminates; candles, wicks. o Class 5 Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food for babies; plasters, materials for dressings; material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides. 112 Trademark Classification 113 o Class 6 Common metals and their alloys; metal building materials; transportable buildings of metal; materials of metal for railway tracks; non-electric cables and wires of common metal; ironmongery, small items of metal hardware; pipes and tubes of metal; safes; goods of
  • MAKING a MARK an Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

    MAKING a MARK an Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

    Intellectual Property for Business Series Number: 1 MAKING A MARK An Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION Publications in the “Intellectual Property for Business” series: 1. Making a Mark: An Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 900. 2. Looking Good: An introduction to Industrial Designs for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 498. 3. Inventing the Future: An introduction to Patents for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 917. 4. Creative Expression: An introduction to Copyright for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 918 (forthcoming). All publications available from the WIPO e-bookshop at: www.wipo.int/ebookshop Disclaimer: The information contained in this guide is not meant as a substitute for professional legal advice. Its purpose is to provide basic information on the subject matter. www.wipo.int/sme/ WIPO Copyright (2006) No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically or mechanically, except as permitted by law, without written permission from the owner of the copyright. Preface This guide is the first in a series of guides on “Intellectual Property for Business.” It is devoted to trademarks, a central element in the marketing and branding strategy of any company. This guide seeks to explain trademarks from a business perspective. Its approach is practical and explanations are illustrated with examples and pictures to enhance the reader’s understanding. Small and Medium-sized Entreprises (SMEs) are encouraged to use the guide with a view to integrating their trademark strategy into their overall business strategy.
  • Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace

    Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace

    Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition G. Peter Albert, Jr. and American Intellectual Property Law Association CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION American Intellectual Property Law Association A Arlington, VA Reprinted with permission For more information contact: bna.com/bnabooks or call 1-800-960-1220 Copyright © 2011 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Albert, G. Peter, 1964– Intellectual property law in cyberspace / G. Peter Albert, Jr. -- 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57018-753-7 (alk. paper) 1. Industrial property--United States. 2. Computer networks--Law and legislation--United States. 3. Internet 4. Copyright and electronic data processing--United States. I. Title. KF3095.A77 2011 346.7304’8--dc23 2011040494 All rights reserved. Photocopying any portion of this publication is strictly prohibited unless express written authorization is first obtained from BNA Books, 1231 25th St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, bna.com/bnabooks. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by BNA Books for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that $1.00 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, copyright.com, Telephone: 978-750-8400, Fax: 978-646-8600.
  • MAKING a MARK an Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Malawi Publications in the “Intellectual Property for Business” Series

    MAKING a MARK an Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Malawi Publications in the “Intellectual Property for Business” Series

    Intellectual Property for Business Series Number: 1 MAKING A MARK An Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Malawi Publications in the “Intellectual Property for Business” series: 1. Making a Mark: An Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Malawi. Department of Registrar General, publication No. 001. 2. Looking Good: An introduction to Industrial Designs for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Malawi. Department of Registrar General, publication No. 002. 3. Inventing the Future: An introduction to Patents for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Malawi. Department of Registrar General, publication No. 003. 4. Creative Expression: An introduction to Copyright for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Malawi. Department of Registrar General, publication No. 004. All publications available from the Department of Registrar General, Fatima Arcade, P.O. Box 100, Blantyre, Tel: 01 824355/795, Fax: 01 821686, E-mail: [email protected] Disclaimer: ‘This publication has been customized and reproduced with the prior express permission of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the copyright owner of the original English version, which is available at www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/guides/. As such, WIPO is not liable or responsible for the accuracy or correctness of the customized version of the publication, as that liability or responsibility rests solely with the Department of the Registrar General, Ministry of Justice of Malawi. “Department of the Registrar General, Ministry of Justice of Malawi (2011)”. WIPO owns copyright in the original English language version (2006). P' reface Until recently, Intellectual Property has been viewed as luxury by industry and in particular, by the Small and Medium-sized Entreprizes (SMEs).
  • Trademark Status and Trademark Registration Faqs,How to Check Trademark Status?,Step by Step Guide for Ipindia Trademark Search

    Trademark Status and Trademark Registration Faqs,How to Check Trademark Status?,Step by Step Guide for Ipindia Trademark Search

    Trademark status and Trademark registration FAQs In this article, We are going to discuss various FAQs related to trademark registration and trademark FAQs. For detailed FAQs on Trademark search in India, you can check out these links : FAQs on trademark search part1 and part 2. Q – What are the different steps involved in trademark registration in India? A – Steps involved in trademark registration in India are – Search of trademark Filing of trademark application Examination of trademark application by authority Post Examination opposition from general public Registration of trademark Q – What id trademark search? A – Trademark search is one of the most important steps in trademark registration. It is a part of due diligence to search for a brand name or a keyword that already has not been trademarked by some other firm. Q – How to file trademark applications? A – Trademark application can be filed both online as well as offline mode. Trademark applications should be supported with mandatory documents. It is also important to file trademark applications in relevant classes or classes. Q – Who will examine trademark application? A – Your trademark application is reviewed by a trademark examiner post filing of trademark application with relevant documents. This examination is done under the guidelines issued under Trademarks Act, 2016. A mandatory examination report has to be sent to the applicant within 30 days of trademark application filing. Q – Can trademark examiner reject trademark application? A – Yes, trademark examiner has full authority to reject a trademark application at outset. Examiner can also raise objections in his examination report. Applicants need to reply to these objections within 30 days.
  • Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Stephen R

    Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Stephen R

    American University Law Review Volume 49 | Issue 6 Article 4 2000 Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Stephen R. Baird Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Baird, Stephen R. (2000) "Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ," American University Law Review: Vol. 49: Iss. 6, Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol49/iss6/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Keywords Trademark, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol49/iss6/4 BAIRDJCI.DOC 6/19/2001 10:51 AM AREA SUMMARIES REVIEW OF THE 1999 TRADEMARK DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT * STEPHEN R. BAIRD TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...................................................................................1322 I. The Federal Circuit Addresses Procedural Issues ................1323 A. Standard of Review........................................................1324 B. Standing to Oppose an “Immoral” or “Scandalous” Mark ..............................................................................1326 C.
  • Trademarks: Understanding the Basics

    Trademarks: Understanding the Basics

    Protecting Your Trademarks: Understanding the Basics September 11, 2012 Presented by: John Conley and Dickson Phillips 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Species of IP Protection Copyright: expression of authors Trademark: distinctive marks used in commerce; unfair competition and publicity Patent: novel, useful, non-obvious inventions Trade secret: whatever, as long as it’s secret Ideas, etc.: don’t waste your time 2 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. What’s a Trademark? Federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.) and state statutory/common law coexist Distinctive marks that identify a product or service Marks can be logos, business names, words, phrases, even sounds or colors 3 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. 4 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Continuum of Distinctiveness Generic: soap; dynamite; golf balls Descriptive: 100% pure soap; explosive dynamite; tournament-quality golf balls Suggestive: Ivory soap; Ka-Boom dynamite; Maxfli golf balls Fanciful/arbitrary: Camay soap; Acme dynamite; Nike (name and/or swoosh) golf balls 5 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Distinctiveness (cont.) Generic marks are unregistrable/unprotectable Descriptive marks require secondary meaning (often proved by surveys) – consumers must associate mark with source Suggestive and fanciful marks are inherently distinctive 6 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Acquiring a Trademark Use and/or registration Use still works Federal registration: after use, or Intent to Use – actual use within 6 (really 24) months Federal registration has major advantages-- 7 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Advantages of Federal Registration Constructive nationwide notice Constructive nationwide use – can be critical in knocking out subsequent users Presumption of ownership and validity State registration largely useless 8 2012 ® Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
  • Trademarks and Domain Names 4

    Trademarks and Domain Names 4

    CHAPTER Trademarks and Domain Names 4 No one was ever fi red for buying IBM. —Anonymous This chapter is about brands, the words and symbols that identify the source of products and services. A strong brand can help bring customers to your products and services. Brands provide credibility. Building and implementing legal protec- tion for your brand are essential ingredients in the success of a digital technology business. The legal name for a brand is a trademark. IN THIS CHAPTER This chapter covers the following topics, all from a software, Internet and digital technology perspective: ■ Introduction to trademark law ■ Strong and weak trademarks ■ Trademark priority ■ Trademark searches ■ US trademark registration ■ Trademarks around the world ■ Trademark licensing ■ Trademarks on the Internet 61 62 CHAPTER 4 Trademarks and Domain Names ■ Domain names ■ Trademark disputes WHAT IS A TRADEMARK? You have an everyday sense of trademarks that identify companies as the source of goods and services—such as Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and Intel. You know that trademarks also apply to particular products—for example, an Excel spreadsheet, an iMac computer, an Electronic Arts video game, or a Core2 Duo processor. Trademarks for products and services appear on screen displays, on packaging, in advertising, on Web sites, and in computer manuals. A trademark can consist of: A name like Microsoft. A slogan like EA Sports’ “It’s in the Game!” Letters and/or numbers like AS/400, an IBM computer hardware brand. A design or logo like Apple Inc.’s various apple-shaped logos. A sound like the familiar Yahoo! yodel sound. Trademarks are source identifi ers that carry an emotional charge.