Intro to Trademark Law Intro to IP – Prof. Merges 3.9.10.
-
date post
22-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
232 -
download
3
Transcript of Intro to Trademark Law Intro to IP – Prof. Merges 3.9.10.
Intro to Trademark Law
Intro to IP – Prof. Merges
3.9.10
Comparing Trademark to Patent & Copyright Law
• Constitutional Foundation– Patent & Copyright clause– Commerce clause (see The Trademark Cases, 100 US
82 (1879)
• Basic Goal– Pat. & ©: Protect author/inventor; promote progress– TM: Protect consumers
Quality assurance in an urban (anonymous) exchange environment
Consumer Protection Rationale
• Fraud cause of action on the part of consumers concentrated and located in the hands of a seller – the trademark “owner”
• This indirectly encourages expenditures to increase the quality of the TM owner’s goods
EARLY HISTORY
ancient times
first use of trademarks
early 19th
century
common law palming off
//
medieval
guild system
1870
18791881
1st Federal Act based on IP
Clause
Trade-mark Cases: striking down Act
Foreign commerce-based Act
MODERN HISTORY
1905 1947 1988 1996
Trademark Act - interstate commerce
Lanham Act Trade Dress § 43(a)
Revisions intent to use
Federal Anti-Dilution Act
EXPANDING PROTECTION
Scope: Marks
Threshold: Actual Use
Trade Dress
Intent to Use
EXPANDING RATIONALE FOR TM
Avoiding Consumer Confusion and Reducing Consumers’ Search Costs
Property Interests in Image: Image as a Marketable Commodity
Encouraging Investment in Advertising and Good Will
TORT
PROPERTY
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
CUSTOMER PERCEPTION
• VALIDITY
• INFRINGEMENT
as a test of:
Sources of Trademark Protection
FEDERAL LAW
STATE LAW
• Federal Registration
• Statutory Protection• Common Law
• False Designations of Origin and False Descriptions §43(a)
Subject Matter
• Trademark:
“word, name, symbol,or device, or any combination thereof”
• Trade Name
• Service Mark• Certification Mark• Collective Mark
SoundFragrance
• Trade Dress and Product Configuration
Hyatt - hotel servicesGood Housekeeping
• Slogan“Greatest Show on Earth”
- state (not fedl) protection
SFA (Snack Food Assoc)
Qualitex v. Jacobson
• Facts
• Holding
Four objections to TMs for color
• Breyer’s response: none of them hold up
• Color can serve the source-identifying function of a trademark
“Big Blue”
Dry Cleaning Press
The term "trademark" includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof--
(1) used by a person, or (2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use …, to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.
Hierarchy of distinctiveness
• Arbitrary: Exxon; Google
• Fanciful: Apple Computer
• Suggestive: “Coppertone” suntan lotion
• Descriptive: Quick-Dri Hairdryers; Speedo bathing suits
Generic Marks
• Words that have ceased to serve as trademarks
• Identified with category or type of product, rather than one company or source: Aspirin; Jello; Kleenex/Xerox?
Qualitex
• Functionality doctrine
– Shredded Wheat case
– Product feature vs. “source indicator”
– What role does the product attribute play?
Color and Functionality
• Red emergency signs?
Zatarain’s v. Oak Grove Smokehouse
Formerly “Chick-Fri”
Zatarain’s
• Generic marks: defense
• Statute: section 14, 15 USC 1064(c)
Hierarchy of distinctiveness
• Arbitrary: Exxon; Google
• Fanciful: Apple Computer
• Suggestive: “Coppertone” suntan lotion
• Descriptive: Quick-Dri Hairdryers; Speedo bathing suits
Generic Marks
• Words that do not serve as trademarks
• Identified with category or type of product, rather than one company or source: Aspirin; Jello; Cellophane; Thermos; Kleenex/Xerox?
Marks “born generic”
• A category of “descriptive” marks under section 2
• Refused registration under Lanham Act sec. 2(e): “Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive . . .”, 15 USC 1052(e)
Genericide
• The mark is originally distinctive, and protectable; but becomes over time generic
• A trademark that is “too successful” -- ?
Cancellation: 15 USC 1064
A petition to cancel a registration of a mark, stating the grounds relied upon, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be filed . . .
(3) At any time if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered . . . .
“Judicial cancellation”
• Court-agency interaction
• Judicial review of the trademark register
Hierarchy of distinctiveness
• Arbitrary: Exxon; Google
• Fanciful: Apple Computer
• Suggestive: “Coppertone” suntan lotion
• Descriptive: Quick-Dri Hairdryers; Speedo bathing suits
Hierarchy of distinctiveness
• Arbitrary: Exxon; Google
• Fanciful: Apple Computer
• Suggestive: “Coppertone” suntan lotion
• Descriptive: Quick-Dri Hairdryers; Speedo bathing suits
• Generic
• A & F
• Sugg.
• Des.
• Generic
Inherently Distinctive
Requires proof of “secondary meaning”
No trademark protection
CategorizationsTrademark
• TENDER VITTLES (cat food)
• ROACH MOTEL (roach trap)
• CHAP STICK (lip balm)
• VISION CENTER (optical store)
• BEER NUTS (snack food)
• FAB (laundry detergent)
• BOLD (laundry detergent)
• STRONGHOLD (nails)
• CITIBANK (banking services)
• NUTRASWEET (sweetner)
Category
• Descriptive
• Suggestive
• Descriptive
• Descriptive
• Descriptive
• Arbitrary
• Suggestive
• Suggestive
• Suggestive
• Descriptive
Categories of MarksLess Protection More Protection
GenericDenotes generalclass of products
Unprotectible
Shredded Wheat,Aspirin, Thermos,Cellophane, Car,Computer
ArbitraryBears no relationto product
AutomaticallyProtectible
DescriptiveDescribes somecharacteristic/quality
Protectible ifsecondary meaning
SuggestiveSuggests somecharacteristic
AutomaticallyProtectible
Sec. 1052 (Lanham Act sec. 2). Trademarks Registrable on Principal Register; Concurrent
Registration
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it —
(e) Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them . . . .
Statutory basis: registration of descriptive marks
Except as expressly excluded in paragraphs . . . of this section, nothing in this chapter shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.
-- Lanham Act sec. 2f, 15 USC 1052(f)
Secondary Meaning• Definition: primary significance of the term in
the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer
• Factors– Consumer surveys
– Amount and volume of advertising
– Volume of sales
– Length and manner of use
– Direct consumer testimony
• In one survey, telephone interviewers questioned 100 women in the New Orleans area who fry fish or other seafood three or more times per month. Of the women surveyed, twenty-three percent specified Zatarain’s ‘‘Fish-Fri’’ as a product they ‘‘would buy at the grocery to use as a coating’’ or a ‘‘product on the market that is especially made for frying fish.’’ In a similar survey conducted in person at a New Orleans area mall, twenty-eight of the 100 respondents answered ‘‘Zatarain’s ‘Fish-Fri’’’ to the same questions.