TRADEMARKS PROF JANICKE FALL 2010 Trademarks TO BE

TRADEMARKS PROF. JANICKE FALL 2010 Trademarks

TO BE A “MARK”: • HAS TO SERVE AS A BRAND • MEANING: HAS TO DISTINGUISH ONE’S GOODS OR SERVICES FROM THOSE OF OTHERS 2010 Trademarks 2

TO BE A “MARK”: HAS TO BE USED PHYSICALLY: – ON THE GOODS, or – ON GOODS’ CONTAINERS, or – ON POINT-OF-SALE DISPLAYS OF GOODS, or – ON INVOICES OR SHIPPING DOCUMENTS, IF THE ABOVE METHODS OF USE ARE IMPRACTICAL, or – IN CATALOGS OR WEBSITES ADVERTISING THE GOODS 2010 Trademarks 3

FOR A SERVICE MARK, USE CAN BE: – ON SIGNS, ADS, OR PAPERS CONNECTED TO THE SERVICE 2010 Trademarks 4

TO BE A “MARK”: • THE MARKED GOODS OR SERVICES HAVE TO PASS IN COMMERCE • LOCAL, FOR STATE RIGHTS • INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN, FOR FEDERAL RIGHTS 2010 Trademarks 5

PROTECTION • RIGHTS BEGIN UPON FIRST USE • REGISTRATION IS UNNECESSARY • CAN SUE FOR INFRINGEMENT OF AN UNREGISTERED MARK – DONE UNDER UNFAIR COMPETITION LAWS 2010 Trademarks 6

BENEFITS OF REGISTRATION • WHILE NOT NEEDED FOR OWNING EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE A MARK, OR FOR SUING INFRINGERS, THERE ARE MANY BENEFITS TO A FEDERAL REGISTRATION: – CAN RESERVE A MARK PRIOR TO USE – EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THE MARK IS PRESUMED FROM REGISTRATION – “INCONTESTABLE” AFTER 5 YEARS 2010 Trademarks 7

(MORE BENEFITS OF FED. REGISTRATION) – CAN SUE INFRINGERS IN FEDERAL COURT, REGARDLESS OF DIVERSITY – VALIDITY OF MARK IS PRESUMED – PROTECTION AGAINST INFRINGEMENT IS NATIONWIDE – U. S. CUSTOMS SERVICE WILL ASSIST AGAINST INFRINGING IMPORTATIONS 2010 Trademarks 8

“RESERVING” A MARK • CAN NOW FILE APPL. TO REGISTER BASED ON INTENT TO USE • PROVIDES CONSTRUCTIVE USE AS OF FILING DATE • MUST ACTUALLY USE IN COMMERCE PRIOR TO REGISTRATION 2010 Trademarks 9

MARKS THAT ARE EASY TO PROTECT • COINED: KODAK; PURELL • ARBITRARY: APPLE; SUN • SUGGESTIVE: MILKY WAY COPPERTONE 2010 Trademarks 10

HARDER TO PROTECT • DESCRIPTIVE: • A SURNAME: TASTEE STEINWAY WATERMAN • GEOGRAPHIC: MID-ATLANTIC; SOUTHWEST • THESE WERE NOT PROTECTED AT FIRST USE • NEED TO DEVELOP ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS OVER TIME, SOMETIMES CALLED “SECONDARY MEANING” 2010 Trademarks 11

WHAT IS NOT A MARK: • GENERIC NAME OF A THING – “BREAD” FOR BREAD • SOME CLOSE ISSUES: – ASPIRIN – SHREDDED WHEAT – Cf. : KLEENEX; PING-PONG; XEROX 2010 Trademarks 12

EXAMPLES OF MARKS 2010 Trademarks 13

2010 Trademarks 14

2010 Trademarks 15

2010 Trademarks 16

2010 Trademarks 17

2010 Trademarks 18

2010 Trademarks 19

2010 Trademarks 20

2010 Trademarks 21

2010 Trademarks 22

2010 Trademarks 23

NATURE OF RIGHTS IN MARKS • PREVENT OTHERS FROM USING SIMILAR MARK WHERE CONFUSION WOULD BE LIKELY • NOT A RIGHT TO PREVENT ALL USES: – “CADILLAC” FOR CARS AND DOG FOOD – “CHAMPION” FOR PAPER AND BOXING GLOVES AND SPARK PLUGS 2010 Trademarks 24

DURATION OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHT • AS LONG AS YOU ARE USING IT IN COMMERCE, PROVIDED - – IT DOES NOT BECOME GENERIC – IT DOES NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER AS SINGLE-SOURCE INDICATOR 2010 Trademarks 25

REITERATING THE LEGAL BENEFITS OF REGISTRATION • PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE • CONSTRUCTIVE USE EVERYWHERE, AS OF THE FILING DATE • STARTS FIVE-YEAR CLOCK TO INCONTESTABILITY 2010 Trademarks 26

PRACTICAL BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION • OTHERS WILL FIND OUT ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS, AND WON’T ADOPT SIMILAR MARK • CHEAP POLICING 2010 Trademarks 27

PASSING/FAILING THE FIRST REQUIREMENT OF A “MARK” • NOT A DISTINGUISHING BRAND 2010 Trademarks 28

PASSING/FAILING SECOND REQUIREMENT OF A “MARK” • NON-USE IN ACTUAL COMMERCE § 1127 2010 Trademarks 29

PASSING/FAILING THIRD REQUIREMENT OF A “MARK” • NON-USE ON GOODS OR CONNECTED TO SERVICES 2010 Trademarks 30

FALLING INTO THE “REGISTERED” PIT PROBLEM: • 1 ST USER HAS NO REGISTRATION • 2 ND USER GOT STATE AND FEDERAL REGISTRATIONS, TWO YEARS AGO • GOODS/MARKS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR • WHO WINS? 2010 Trademarks 31

THE THORN: PERMANENT LOCAL USE RIGHTS • THE ONE BIG PROBLEM FOR THE FIRST USER IN COMMERCE • SECOND USER CAN GET PERMANENT LOCAL RIGHTS TO USE • IF CONFUSION, FIRST USER MUST STAY OUT! 2010 Trademarks 32

PERMANENT USE RIGHTS CONDITIONS: • (1) FIRST TO USE IN A LOCALE (STATE OR LESS) • (2) NO KNOWLEDGE OF PRIOR USER ELSEWHERE AT TIME OF ADOPTION 2010 Trademarks 33

PERMANENT USE RIGHTS • FOR MANY YEARS, THE CUTOFF DATE FOR ESTABLISHING LOCAL RIGHTS WAS REGISTRATION DATE • REGISTRATION PROVIDED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SEE § 1072), THEREBY BLOCKING CONDITION (2) 2010 Trademarks 34

PERMANENT USE RIGHTS • NOW, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT A FEDERAL REGISTRATION CONSTITUTES CONSTRUCTIVE USE EVERYWHERE AS OF THE FILING DATE (§ 1057(c)) • THIS KILLS CONDITION (1) AS OF THE FILING DATE 2010 Trademarks 35

PERMANENT USE RIGHTS • ∴ REGISTRATION AS CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE DOESN’T MATTER ANY MORE 2010 Trademarks 36

QUASI-MARKS AND NON-MARKS • WALK THROUGH § 1052 • THESE CONDITIONS FOR “REGISTRATION” ARE APPLIED BY COURTS IN DECIDING “PROTECTION” FOR UNREGISTERED MARKS 2010 Trademarks 37

QUASI-MARKS AND NON-MARKS • START WITH 1052 (a) - (d): TELLS US MANY PROBLEMS ARE INCURABLE 2010 Trademarks 38

QUASI-MARKS AND NON-MARKS THE (e) GROUP – SOME ARE CURABLE: • DESCRIPTIVE • GEOGRAPHIC • SURNAMES SOME NOT CURABLE: DECEPTIVELY MISDESCRIPTIVE 2010 Trademarks 39

QUASI-MARKS AND NON-MARKS • FUNCTIONAL (WORRY: MARK PROTECTION CAN LAST FOREVER) • EXAMPLE: SHAPE OF A DESK LAMP • CANNOT BE CURED 2010 Trademarks 40

GETTING FROM QUASI TO FULL: SHOWING ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS • OFTEN CALLED “SECONDARY MEANING” • SHOWS THE QUASI-MARK HAS ARRIVED; NOW SIGNALS SOURCE • FIVE YEARS EXCLUSIVE USE MAY DO 15 USC § 1052 (f) 2010 Trademarks 41

LESS KNOWN TYPES • COLLECTIVE MARKS – TRADE / SERVICE MARKS – MEMBERSHIP MARKS • CERTIFICATION MARKS § 1054 2010 Trademarks 42

CONFUSION LIKELIHOOD • • 2010 AS TO SOURCE AS TO SPONSORSHIP AS TO AFFILIATION AS TO APPROVAL Trademarks 43

CONFUSION LIKELIHOOD • SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PERSONS • PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE TRANSLATION – DEPENDS HOW MANY SPEAK IT IN U. S. 2010 Trademarks 44

STRONG-WEAK MARKS • COINED -- e. g. , KODAK: STRONGEST OF ALL – ENTITLED TO THE WIDEST SCOPE OF PROTECTION – MODAK, DODAK, KODAR, FOR FILM WILL BE HELD INFRINGING • ARBITRARY – e. g. APPLE: – ALSO VERY STRONG 2010 Trademarks 45

• SUGGESTIVE (e. g. MILKY WAY; COPPERTONE) – OK, BUT WEAKER – “CREAMY WAY, ” “BRONZETONE” MIGHT BE HELD NONINFRINGING • DESCRIPTIVE (e. g. TASTEE BREAD, SUPERIOR WATERBEDS), and SURNAMES (WATERMAN FOR PENS, FORD FOR CARS) – ARE NOT PROTECTED RIGHT AWAY – ARE PROTECTED WHEN THEY HAVE ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS 2010 Trademarks 46

• “DESCRIPTIVE” INCLUDES GEOG. DESCRIPTIVE (e. g. SOUTHWEST FOR AIRLINE SERVICES, HOUSTON CHRONICLE FOR NEWSPAPERS) – NOT PROTECTED AT FIRST • GENERIC NAME OF ARTICLE (e. g. ASPIRIN) – CANNOT SERVE AS A MARK – CANNOT ACQUIRE DISTINCTIVENESS – IT’S PART OF THE LANGUAGE 2010 Trademarks 47

FACTORS IN JUDGING LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION • NO SINGLE FACTOR CONTROLS • “SUNKIST” FOR FRESH FRUIT AND FOR DRIED FRUIT WERE OWNED BY UNRELATED COMPANIES • MARKS LIKE “ACME, ” “SUPERIOR, AND “NATIONAL” HAVE MANY OWNERS • FAMOUS CASES HAVE CHECKLISTS 2010 Trademarks 48

FACTORS • STRENGTH OF P’S MARK – HOW ARBITRARY? – HOW MUCH USE? • SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS – SIGHT – SOUND – MEANING – SCRIPT OR DESIGN • SIMILARITY OF PRODUCTS OF SERVICES 2010 Trademarks 49

FACTORS (CONT’D. ) • SIMILAR CHANNELS OF TRADE • SIMILAR ADVERTISING OR PROMOTION MEDIA • BAD FAITH ADOPTION – SOME COURTS GIVE THIS HEAVY WEIGHT; OTHERS DON’T • SIMILAR TARGET CUSTOMERS • SIMILAR PURCHASE CONDITIONS: TIME, PRICE, ETC. 2010 Trademarks 50

• COURTS HAVE TO WEIGH ALL THE FACTORS • THEY REACH A DECISION THAT IS TO SOME DEGREE SUBJECTIVE 2010 Trademarks 51

WHO HAS THE RIGHT? THE PROBLEM OF “GRAY GOODS” • ARISES FROM CORPORATE SPINOFFS [ABOUT AS FREQUENT AS MERGERS] • WHEN FOREIGN MARKET IS SPUN OFF, MARKS USUALLY GO WITH • ALSO FROM LICENSING [IP MAXIMIZATION] 2010 Trademarks 52

GRAY GOODS U. S. RULE: • IF OWNERS ARE SAME OR RELATED, NO RELIEF AGAINST IMPORTATION • IF OWNERS ARE UNRELATED, RELIEF IF QUALITY IS LOWER 2010 Trademarks 53

WHAT IS NOT INFRINGEMENT • FAIR USE TO DESCRIBE: JANICKE’S COMPUTER RENTAL WE RENT ALL INCLUDING WETYPES, RENT ALL TYPES COMPAQ®, IBM®, AND DELL® INCLUDING COMPAQ® AND IBM® § 1115 (4) 2010 Trademarks 54

WHAT IS NOT INFRINGEMENT • OWN NAME IN BUSINESS OTHER THAN AS A MARK • Cf: SPERA’S RESTAURANT TONY SPERA, PROP. TONY’S RESTAURANT TONY SPERA, PROP. 2010 Trademarks 55

N. B. • NO GENERAL RIGHT TO USE YOUR OWN NAME IN BUSINESS • MOST ATTEMPTS FAIL • NO POINT IN CHANGING YOUR NAME TO JOHNNY WALKER IF YOU ARE GOING TO SELL WHISKY 2010 Trademarks 56

N. B. • STATEMENTS OF DISCONNECTEDNESS USUALLY FAIL 2010 Trademarks 57

A WORD ABOUT DILUTION • WHEN THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT BECAUSE NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION • BUT THE ACTS OF D SOMEHOW CHEAPEN OR TARNISH OR REDUCE THE VALUE OF P’S MARK 2010 Trademarks 58

A WORD ABOUT DILUTION • EXAMPLE: – “CADILLAC” FOR CARS – FOLLOWED MANY YEARS LATER BY: “CADILLAC” FOR DOG FOOD 2010 Trademarks 59

A WORD ABOUT DILUTION • ONLY AVAILABLE FOR “FAMOUS” MARKS • NO DAMAGES NORMALLY

REMEDIES 2010 Trademarks 61

INJUNCTIVE • NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WITHOUT EXCLUSION POWER • CONSIDER LAND OR CAR ANALOGY: IF ONLY DAMAGES, YOU ARE MERELY IN THE RENTAL BUSINESS 2010 Trademarks 62

INJUNCTIVE • PRELIMINARY • PERMANENT – § 1116 (a) • 4, 000 + TRADEMARK SUITS FILED ANNUALLY • ABOUT 45 GO TO TRIAL 2010 Trademarks 63

MONETARY • D’S PROFITS • OR P’S DAMAGES [DIFFICULT TO SHOW] • COURT CAN TREBLE P’S DAMAGES • IF D’S PROFITS AS REMEDY IS TOO SMALL/LARGE, COURT CAN ENTER A “JUST” AMOUNT § 1117 (a) 2010 Trademarks 64

ATTORNEY’S FEES • “EXCEPTIONAL CASES” ONLY • USUALLY MEANS WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT § 1117 (a) 2010 Trademarks 65

DESTRUCTION • A NICE MEDIEVAL REMEDY • ALL INFRINGING LABELS, AND THE MEANS OF MAKING THEM [PRINTING GEAR, INCL. COMPUTERS? ] § 1118 2010 Trademarks 66

DEFENDANT’S REMEDIES • ATTORNEY’S FEES IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES § 1117 (a) • ORDER TO CANCEL REGISTRATION § 1119 2010 Trademarks 67