Duck® brand Duck Tape®. University of Oregonâ„¢ Marks University Of...

download Duck® brand Duck Tape®. University of Oregonâ„¢ Marks University Of Oregonâ„¢ Oregon Ducksâ„¢ Go Ducks® Oregon Footballâ„¢ Oregon Basketballâ„¢ Oregon

If you can't read please download the document

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Duck® brand Duck Tape®. University of Oregonâ„¢ Marks University Of...

  • Duck brand Duck Tape

  • University of Oregon MarksUniversity Of Oregon Oregon Ducks Go Ducks Oregon Football Oregon Basketball Oregon Track And FieldTrack TownHayward Field, Autzen Stadium, Mac Court, And Howe Field

  • Tinker Hatfield

  • GoGo Sports Inc v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc et al (2011)Case Brief

  • Trademark SearchesUSTPO searchOnly federal marks....State of Oregon trademarkOregon state search formOnly marks registered in the stateNo common law search available

  • TerritorialityOnce trademark rights are established in a particular jurisdiction, these rights are generally only enforceable in that jurisdiction.Madrid Protocol:International application, 84 countriesFile once10 year renewalsPart of WIPO

  • Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 199915 U.S.C. 1125(d)Prevents people from buying domain names featuring famous trademarks with NO INTENTION of using them but SELLING themCannot use domain name that dilutes a known trademark

  • Infringing on MaksDilution: Use lessens distinctiveness of usually FAMOUS marks; high potential for consumer confusion1) Blur: Use a famous mark or similar mark in different market. Sony Beer, Disney Rolling Papers. Whittling away of distinctiveness 2) Tarnishment: unflattering association that weakens the mark, reflects poorly of product's owner (Moral right?)Easier to dilute famous marks: Nike or Coca-Cola

  • Starbucks v. Dwyer (2001)Kieron Dwyer Lowest Common DenominatorTrademark parody?Tarnished, confusing, dilutionSettlementRestricted use to web

  • Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising (1972)

  • Mosely v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)Supreme Court decisionVictor's Secret, then Victor's Little SecretDilution of Victoria's Secret trademarkFirst test of Fed. Trademark Dilution Act (1995)Ruling: in favor of MoselySig: must prove actual harmTrademark Dilution Revision Act (2006)

  • Fair and BalancedIt is ironic that a media company that should seek to protect the First Amendment is instead seeking to undermine it. ~Judge Chin

  • SwooshDesigned by Carolyn Davidson, 1971, $35egistered 1974Nike Brand=$15B90% of $19B=Logo

  • Cease & Desist