Intellectual Property

Boston College Law School

April 1, 2009

Trademark – Domain Names

Trademark Infringement

• Causes of action– Likelihood of confusion– Dilution– Cyber-squatting– False Advertising

Domain Name System

ICANN

ICANNICANNRegistrarsICANNICANNCountries

.com, .org, .net .us, .uk, .jp

Sites Sites Sites Sites Sites

nike.com coke.com kodak.com nike.uk kodak.jp

Types of Domain Name Disputes

• Likelihood of Confusion– E.g. nike.com to sell competing shoes

– E.g. plannedparenthood.org for confusing anti-abortion web site

• Dilution of Famous Mark– E.g. nike.com to sell ball bearings (blurring)

– E.g. candyland.com or adultsrus.com (tarnishment)

Types of Domain Name Disputes

• Cybersquatting– E.g. register nike.com to sell to Nike

– E.g. register panavision.com to sell to Panasonic

• Competitive warehousing– E.g. Princeton Review registering kaplan.com

• Concurrent uses– E.g. Apple Computer and Apple Records

– E.g. Budweiser U.S. and Budweiser Czech Republic

Types of Domain Name Disputes

• Noncommercial uses– E.g. pokey.org, veronica.org for personal sites

– E.g. nike.net, for site criticizing Nike labor practices

• Parody and critique– E.g. peta.org for People Eating Tasty Animals

– E.g. walmartsucks.com, guiness-really-sucks.com

Sources of Law

• Trademark Law– Likelihood of confusion– Dilution– Anti-Cybersquatting

• Administrative Solution– Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

Anti-Cybersquatting

• Lanham Act § 43(d):– (1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the

owner of a mark … if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person --

• (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark …; and

• (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that -– (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive … is identical or

confusingly similar …

– (II) in the case of a famous mark … is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark.

Anti-Cybersquatting

• Lanham Act § 43(d):– (1)(B) In determining whether a person has a bad faith

intent … a court may consider factors such as … -• (I) the trademark … rights of the person …

• (II) … consists of a legal name of the person …

• (III) … prior use … with the bona fide offering of goods

• (IV) … bona fide noncommercial or fair use

• (V) … intent to divert consumers … for commercial gain

• (VI) … offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign …

• (VII) … provision of material and misleading false contact info

• (VII) … registration or acquisition of multiple domain names

Shields v. Zuccarini

PETA v. Doughney

Uniform Dispute Resolution

• Elements– “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark

– “no rights or legitimate interests” in domain name

– domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”

• Evidence of Bad Faith– Registered primarily for purpose of sale to tm owner

– Registered in order to prevent tm owner from using

– Registered to disrupt competitor’s business

– Intentionally attempting to attract users to site for commercial gain through likelihood of confusion

Uniform Dispute Resolution

• Evidence of Legitimate Interest– Prior use of domain name with bona fide offering of goods

– Commonly known by domain name

– Making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark

Third Party Liability

• Third Party Liability– Contributory Liability

• (i) assist in infringing activity

• (ii) knew or had reason to know of infr. activity

– Vicarious Liability• (i) authority or ability to control other’s behavior

• (ii) direct financial benefit from infringement

Polo v. Chinatown

e-Bay Example

Third-Party Liability

• Reasons to extend– Facilitate enforcement, lower costs– Third-parties morally culpable– Deter third-parties

• Reasons to limit– Imposes costs on third-parties to monitor– Not always fair to impose burden– Not always most efficient to impose burden

False Advertising

• Lanham Act, § 43– (a) Any person who, on or in connection with any

goods or services … uses in commerce any … false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -- …

• (2) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

– shall be liable in a civil action ...

J&J v. Smithkline

Defenses

• Genericness

• Functionality

• Abandonment

• Nominative Use

• Parody

Murphy Door Bed v. Interior

Generic?

• Generic– Thermos

– Escalator

– Trampoline

– Cellophane

– Nylon

– Yo-Yo

Avoiding Genericide

Administrative

• Next Assignment– Finish Trademark

Exam Details

• Test Details– 24-hour take-home exam– Freely schedulable during regular exam period– Open book– Strict word limits– Past exams on course web page