NTU Law Briefs

download NTU Law Briefs

of 43

Transcript of NTU Law Briefs

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    1/43

    Trademarks1. Concepts............................................................................................1

    1.1. Subject Matter..............................................................................1

    Definition of trademark....................................................................1

    Definition of trade name..................................................................1

    International New Service v. Associated Press p. !........................1

    Sears" #oebuck $ Co. v. Stiffel Co. p. %..........................................1

    &'at is a (rademark)......................................................................1

    *anover Star Millin+ Co v. Metcalf p. %,..........................................!

    Stork #estaurant v. Sa'iti p. -.......................................................!

    Sta'l/ v. M* 0acobs 2t' Circuit3 p. -%.............................................!

    Alfred Dun'ill v. Interstate Ci+ar Co. !nd Circuit3 p. -2..................!C'ampion Spark Plu+ v. Sanders Supreme Court3 p. -,.................!

    4ello++ v. National 5iscuit p. ,6.......................................................!

    7ualite8 v. 0acobson Products Supreme Court3 p. 9-.....................

    1.!. Distinctiveness.............................................................................

    Abercrombie $ :itc' v. *untin+ &orld Second Circuit" 192-3 p. 1,...................................................................................................

    (ec'nical (rademarks" p. 11!..........................................................

    Application of #e/nolds Metals Co. CCPA" 1923 p. 11!.................

    In re Application of 7uik;Print Cop/ S'ops CCPA" 1923 p. 116......

    International 4ennel Club v. Mi+'t/ Star Sevent' Circuit" 19,,3 p.11,...................................................................................................

    #ock $ #oll *all of :ame v.

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    2/43

    ucent Info. M+t. v. ucent (ec'nolo+ies DDel" 19923 p. 1-,.........%

    S'alom C'ildrens &ear v. In;&ear ((A5" 1993 p. 12.................%

    Mar/land Stadium Aut'orit/ v. 5ecker :ourt' Circuit" 19963 p. 126.........................................................................................................%

    1, Contacts v. &'en>.com SDN?" !3 S p. 1!........................%>;*aul v. &'en>.com D Ea." !3 S p. 16..................................%

    &ells :ar+o v. &'en>.com D Mic'." !3 S p. 1-.......................%

    !.. Concurrent >se............................................................................-

    >nited Dru+ v. ('eodore #ectanus Supreme Court" 191,3 p. 122..-

    ('rift/ #ent;A;Car v. ('rift Cars :irst Circuit" 19,23 p. 1,!............-

    E $ E :ood Products v. Caci=ue C'eese ND Ill." !3 S p. !.......-

    Dawn Donut v. *arts :ood Stores Second Circuit" 19%93 p. 1,,....-

    mer+enc/ Fne v. Am. a+le :ire App. :ourt' Circuit" !3 S p.6.....................................................................................................-

    !.6. Intent to >se.................................................................................-

    Medinol v. Neuro Eas8 ((A5" !3 S p. %....................................,

    Girco v. American (elep'one $ (ele+rap' ((A5" 19913 p. 19,......,

    &arnerEision v. mpire of Carolina Second Circuit" 199-3 p. !1. .,

    S'alom C'ildrens &ear v. In;&ear ((A5" 1993 p. !9.................,

    Application of American Ps/c' Association ((A5" 199-3 p. !9.... .,

    #acin+ C'ampions v. Mattel ((A5" !3 p. !1............................,

    !.%. :orei+n Application......................................................................,

    . oss of (rademark #i+'ts...................................................................9

    .1. nited Dru+ SDN?" 19!13 p. 1!......................................9

    Sti8 v. >nited Merc'ants SDN?" 19-,3 p. 1%.................................9

    4in+;Seele/ ('ermos v. Aladdin Second Circuit" 19-3 p. !,.......9

    DuPont v. ?os'ida DN?" 192%3 p. !...........................................9.!. Secondar/ Meanin+....................................................................1

    America Fnline v. A( $ ( :ourt' Circuit" !13 p. -.................1

    Microsoft v. indows.com &D &as'" !3 p. 2.........................1

    *arle/ Davidson v.

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    3/43

    Ftoko/ama v. &ine of 0apan Import Second Circuit" 19993 p. 69.......................................................................................................1

    *offman;a #oc'e v. Medisca NDN?" 19993 p. 69......................1

    Dial;A;Mattress v. Pa+e Second Circuit" 19,93 p. %6...................1

    *olida/ Inns v. , #eservation Si8t' Circuit" 199-3 p. %6.........1.. Abandonment.............................................................................11

    Silverman v. C5S Second Circuit" 19,93 p. %-............................11

    88on Corp. v. *umble 8ploration :ift' Circuit" 19,3 p. -.....11

    Indianapolis Colts v. 5altimore :ootball Sevent' Circuit" 19963 p.-6.................................................................................................11

    5aseball Props v. Sed Non let Denarius SDN?" 1993 p. -6......11

    #ust nvironment v. (eunissen Sevent' Circuit" 19923 p. --.....11

    Clark $ :reeman v. *eartland SDN?" 1993 p. -,......................11

    ?ocum v. Covin+ton ((A5" 19,!3 p. 21......................................1!

    >niversit/ 5ookstore v. 5oard of #e+ents ((A5" 19963 p. 26.....1!

    5arcamerica v. (/field Importers Nint' Circuit" !!3 S p. ,!......1!

    6. #e+istration......................................................................................1!

    6.1. Process.......................................................................................1!

    Steps p. !16...................................................................................1!

    Advanta+es of (rademark #e+istration p. !!1...............................1!

    Supplemental #e+ister...................................................................1

    ('e Notice of #e+istration..............................................................1

    Maintenance and #enewal of #e+istration.....................................1

    6.!. (/pes of Marks...........................................................................16

    Service Marks p. !!%......................................................................16

    Collective Mark...............................................................................16

    Certification Mark...........................................................................16

    %. 5ars to #e+istration..........................................................................1%%.1. Scandalous" dispara+in+ and deceptive.....................................1%

    In re 5ad :ro+ 5rewer/ 19993 p. !!9............................................1%

    *arjo v. Pro;:ootball D DC" !3 S p. 9.....................................1%

    %.!. Deceptive Matter p. !%.............................................................1%

    :la+" Coat of Arms or Ft'er Insi+nia p. !%6...................................1-

    iii

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    4/43

    %.. Name" Portrait or Si+nature" ivin+ Individual or Deceased >SPresident p. !%-................................................................................1-

    %.6. Confusion p. !%2........................................................................1-

    Nutrasweet v. 4 $ S :oods p. !%2..................................................1-

    Mars'all :ield v. Mrs. :ields Cookies ((A5" 199!3 p. !-.............12%.%.

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    5/43

    Pla/bo/ v. Netscape Nint' Circuit" !63 S p. ,,..........................!

    Pla/bo/ v. >niversal (el;A;(alk D Pa" 199,3 p. 69....................!

    -.!. #elevant Public...........................................................................!

    Mastercrafters Clock and #adio v. Eac'eron and Constantin;e

    Coultre &atc'es Second Circuit" 19%%3 p. 66.............................!:o8wort'/ v. Custom (ees ND

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    6/43

    #in+lin+ v. CeloHHi;ttelson C'evrolet Sevent' Circuit" 19,,3 p.-9,.................................................................................................!,

    Mead Data v. (o/ota Second Circuit" 19,93 p. 21.......................!,

    Deere v. M(D Products Second Circuit" 19963 p. 22...................!,

    *ormel :oods v. 0im *enson Prods. Second Circuit" 199-3 p. 21! !,,.. Dilution under t'e :ederal Statute.............................................!9

    #in+lin+ 5ros. v. >ta' Div. of (ravel Devt. :ourt' Circuit" 19993 p.219.................................................................................................!9

    Panavision v. (oeppen Nint' Circuit" 199,3 p. 2!2.......................!9

    Aver/ Dennison v. Sumpton Nint' Circuit" 19993 p. 2!..............!9

    ,.6. (rade Dress................................................................................!9

    *ers'e/ :oods v. Mars MD Pa" 199,3 p. 26................................!9

    I.P. und v. 4o'ler :irst Circuit" 199,3 p. 26................................!9

    Nabisco v. P: 5rands Second Circuit" 19993 p. 2%......................!9

    Mosele/ v. E Secret Catalo+ue Supreme Court" !3 S p. 169. ..

    9. Internet Domain Names...................................................................

    9.1. AntiC/bers=uattin+ Consumer Protection Act............................

    #e=uirements.................................................................................1

    Sport/s :arm v. Sportsmans Market Second Circuit" !3 p. 22.......................................................................................................1

    Morrison $ :oerster v. &ick D Colo" !3 p. 222........................1

    *arrods v. Si8t/ Domain Names :ourt' Circuit" !!3 S p. 1-9.. .

    9.!. ICANN and t'e >#DP p. ,1.......................................................

    &&: v. 5osman &IPF" !3 p. ,-..........................................

    *ewlett Packard v. 5ur+ar NA:" !3 p. ,16...............................

    Sprin+steen v. 5ur+ar &IPF" !13 p. ,12...................................

    ucas Nurser/ v.

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    7/43

    4P v. astin+ Impression Nint' Circuit" !3 S p. 9,...................6

    1.!. Nominative :air >se.................................................................6

    N4F(5 v. News America Nint' Circuit" 199!3 p. ,61....................6

    Pla/bo/ v. (erri &elles Nint' Circuit" !!3 S p. 191....................%

    1.. Parod/......................................................................................%

    Mutual of Fma'a v. Novak i+'t' Circuit" 19,23 p. ,26...............%

    Cliffs Notes v. 5antam Doubleda/ Second Circuit" 19,93 p. ,,1. .%

    An'euser;5usc' v. 5alducci Publs. i+'t' Circuit" 199%3 p. ,,9...%

    Mattel v. >niversal Music Nint' Circuit" !!3 S p. !1................%

    Mattel v. &alkin+ Mountain Nint' Circuit" !3 S p. !9............-

    vii

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    8/43

    1. Concepts

    1.1. Subject Matter

    Definition of trademark 6% of an'am Act" S p. !2!J KL an/ word" name" s/mbol" or device"or an/ combination t'erefof;

    13used b/ a person" or

    !3w'ic' a person 'as a bona fide intention to use in commerce andapplies to re+ister on t'e principal re+ister establis'ed b/ t'isAct

    to identif/ and distin+uis' 'is or 'er +oods" includin+ a uni=ue product"from t'ose manufactured or sold b/ ot'ers and to indicate t'e sourceof t'e +oods" even if t'at source is unknown.

    Definition of trade name

    6% of an'am Act" S p. !2!J KL an/ name used b/ a person toidentif/ 'is or 'er business or vocation.

    (rademark protection is

    for commercial identit/ of product

    protects a+ainst labelin+ of +ood or service

    indefinite

    obtained b/ application to t'e P(F

    territorial

    International New Service v. Associated Press p. 32

    ('ere is a +eneral common law propert/ ri+'t a+ainstKmisappropriation of commercial value.

    Sears, oe!"ck # Co. v. Stiffel Co. p. 3$

    A States unfair competition law cannot impose liabilit/ for or pro'ibitt'e cop/in+ of an article w'ic' is protected b/ neit'er a federal patent

    nor a cop/ri+'t.

    %&at is a Trademark'

    A word" lo+o or packa+e desi+n" or a combination of t'em" used b/ amanufacturer or merc'ant to identif/ its +oods and distin+uis' t'emfrom ot'ers.

    Includes

    1

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    9/43

    brand namesidentif/in+ +oods

    trade dress consistin+ of +rap'ics" color or s'ape of+oodspacka+in+

    service marksidentif/in+ services

    certification marks identif/in+ +oods or services meetin+ specified

    =ualifications collective marks identif/in+ +oods" services or members of a

    collective or+aniHation

    (anover Star )illin* Co v. )etcalf p. $+

    Primar/ and proper role of trademark is to identif/ ori+in of article.Common law trademarks arise from use. Propert/ ri+'t onl/ wit'establis'ed business or trade. Not t'e subject of propert/ e8cept inconnection wit' e8istin+ business.

    Stork esta"rant v. Sa&iti p. -

    Controllin+ principleJ Oconfusion of sourceO wit' corollar/" Odilution of+oodwillO.

    1. O#eapin+ w'ere Fne 'as not SownO

    !. Disparit/ in siHe of businesses will not bar injunctive relief

    . Mere +eo+rap'ical distance does not obviate dan+er of confusion

    6. Actual loss of trade need not be s'own to warrant an injunction

    Sta&l v. )( /aco!s 0t& Circ"it p. $

    Defendant could not sell defective raHors" ac=uired in default on a loan"wit'out removin+ trademarks as t'is would confuse t'e public.

    Alfred D"n&ill v. Interstate Ci*ar Co. 02nd Circ"it p.

    Dun'ill could not force insurer to mark tobacco as water;dama+ed as it'ad missed its opportunit/. ('is ma/ be because t'e risk toconsumers is less.Q

    C&ampion Spark Pl"* v. Sanders 0S"preme Co"rt p. +

    #econditioned sparkplu+s must be clearl/ and distinctl/ sold as suc'.('e reseller can +et some advanta+e from t'e trademark provided t'e

    manufacturer is not identified wit' inferior =ualities of product.

    ello** v. National 4isc"it p. +5

    If a term is +eneric" t'e ori+inal maker of a product ac=uires noe8clusive ri+'t to use it" particularl/ if it is t'e subject of an e8piredpatent. A particular manufacturer cannot assert e8clusive ri+'ts in aparticular form of a product. A +eneric name and form must be used ina fair wa/.

    !

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    10/43

    6"alite7 v. /aco!son Prod"cts 0S"preme Co"rt p. 8

    A color ma/ meet ordinar/ le+al trademark re=uirements and w'en itdoes so" no special le+al rule prevents color alone from servin+ as atrademark. ('e lan+ua+e of t'e statute is not restrictive and color canbe used to identif/ or distin+uis'. It can be used w'ere it 'as attained

    Ksecondar/ meanin+. :unctionalit/ does not create an absolute bar.Musical c'imes and fra+rances ma/ be trademarked.

    1.2. Distinctiveness

    A!ercrom!ie # 9itc& v. ("ntin* %orld 0Second Circ"it, 18 p. 1-+

    Cate+ories of trademarkable termsJ

    1. genericJ refers to +enus of w'ic' particular product is a species.Cannot be trademarked. S/mbols can be +eneric.

    !. descriptiveJ conve/s immediate idea of t'e in+redients" =ualitiesor c'aracteristics of t'e +oods. Protected if it ac=uires secondar/meanin+.

    . suggestiveJ re=uires ima+ination" t'ou+'t and perception toreac' +oods.

    6. arbitrary and fancifulJ invented or used in a unfamiliar wa/.

    No clear lines. (erm ma/ in different cate+ories for different products.Ma/ s'ift.

    Tec&nical Trademarks, p. 112

    Arbitrar/" fanciful" and su++estive marks ma/ be re+istered wit'outproof of secondar/ meanin+.

    Application of enolds )etals Co. 0CCPA, 183 p. 112

    A mark t'at is descriptive ma/ still be re+istrable if it is not merel/descriptive.

    In re Application of 6"ik:Print Cop S&ops 0CCPA, 183 p. 115

    If t'e =ualit/ or c'aracteristic of appellants service comes immediatel/to mind" t'e mark is merel/ descriptive.

    International ennel Cl"! v. )i*&t Star 0Sevent& Circ"it, 18++ p. 11+

    Secondar/ meanin+ will be ac=uired w'en most consumers t'ink of aword not as descriptive but as t'e name of t'e product. on+ use"advertisin+ and publicit/ will tend to establis' secondar/ meanin+.

    ock # oll (all of 9ame v. ;entile Prod. 0Si7t& Circ"it, 188+ p. 12

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    11/43

    A buildin+ is not fanciful in t'e wa/ a coined word. ('ere must beconsistent and repetitive use as an indicator of source to be atrademark.

    2. Ac

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    12/43

    2.2. Priority

    4l"e 4ell v. 9ara& )an"fact"rin* 09ift& Circ"it, 18$ p. 12

    Secret" undisclosed internal s'ipments are +enerall/ inade=uate tosupport t'e denomination Kuse. ('e +oods must bear t'e mark

    alle+edl/ used and it must be on t'e +oods w'ic' are to bear t'atmark.

    B"cent Info. )*t. v. B"cent Tec&nolo*ies 0DDel, 188 p. 1+

    A sin+le sale is often not enou+' to establis' priorit/.

    S&alom C&ildren@s %ear v. In:%ear 0TTA4, 1883 p. 1-

    A priorit/ date can be establis'ed b/ use analo+ous to trademark use"i.e.nontec'nical use in connection wit' t'e promotion or sale of aproduct under circumstances w'ic' do not provide a basis for anapplication to re+ister.

    )arland Stadi"m A"t&orit v. 4ecker 09o"rt& Circ"it, 1885 p. 15

    Advertisin+ and promotion is sufficient to obtain ri+'ts in a mark aslon+ as t'e/ occur Kwit'in a commerciall/ reasonable time prior to t'eactual rendition of serviceL and as lon+ as t'e totalit/ of actsKcreatesQ association of t'e +oods or services and t'e mark wit' t'euser t'ereof.O

    1+-- Contacts v. %&en?.com 0SDN=, 2--3 S p. 12

    Includin+ a ># in a database t'at tri++ers pop;up advertisements is a

    use in commerce. Construin+ Kuse as Kto identif/ or distin+uis' is toonarrow.

    ?:(a"l v. %&en?.com 0D a., 2--3 S p. 15

    Pop;up advertisement do not constitute Kuse in commerce becauset'e/ are in separate windows" trademarks can be simultaneousl/visible to a consumer" >#s are not trademarks w'en used to identif/ abusiness entit/" and t'ere is no interference wit' t'e use of t'eplaintiffs website.

    %ells 9ar*o v. %&en?.com 0D )ic&., 2--3 S p. 1

    Similar to U-Haul. ('e use of >#s to identif/ a website is not a use incommerce because it is not used to indicate an/t'in+ about t'e sourceof t'e products and services it advertises.

    %

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    13/43

    2.3. Concurrent Use

    ?nited Dr"* v. T&eodore ectan"s 0S"preme Co"rt, 181+ p. 1

    A trademark is not a ri+'t in +ross. ('ere is no propert/ in a marke8cept as a ri+'t appurtenant to an establis'ed business or trade in

    connection wit' w'ic' t'e mark is emplo/ed. ('e owner of atrademark ma/ not make a ne+ative and merel/ pro'ibitive use of it asa monopol/. In +eneral" priorit/ of appropriation determines betweenconflictin+ claimants to t'e ri+'t to use t'e same mark but t'is isbecause t'e purc'asers 'ave come to understand t'e mark asindicatin+ t'e ori+in of t'e wares.

    T&rift ent:A:Car v. T&rift Cars 09irst Circ"it, 18+ p. 1+2

    b3 allows a Klimited area e8ception to incontestabilit/" w'ic're=uires t'at

    1. t'e mark was adopted before t'e senior user" wit'out knowled+e!. t'e mark was used in a specific trade area before t'e senior user

    . t'e mark was continuousl/ used in t'e trade area

    # 9ood Prod"cts v. Caci s/stem attempts toredress t'is.

    1 b3 13 A person w'o 'as a bona fide intention" under circumstancess'owin+ t'e +ood fait' of suc' person" to use a trademark incommerce ma/ appl/ to re+ister t'e trademark L

    c3 At an/ time durin+ e8amination of an application filed undersubsection b3 of t'is section" an applicant w'o 'as made use of t'emark in commerce ma/ claim t'e benefits of suc' use for purposes of

    -

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    14/43

    t'is c'apter" b/ amendin+ 'is or 'er application to brin+ it intoconformit/ wit' t'e re=uirements of subsection a3 of t'is section.

    13 &it'in si8 mont's after t'e date on w'ic' t'e notice ofallowance wit' respect to a mark is issued under section 1-b3!3 of t'is title to an applicant under subsection b3 of t'is

    section" t'e applicant s'all file L a verified statement t'at t'emark is in use in commerce and specif/in+ t'e date of t'eapplicants first use of t'e mark in commerce and t'ose +oods orservices specified in t'e notice of allowance on or in connectionwit' w'ic' t'e mark is used in commerce. Subject toe8amination and acceptance of t'e statement of use" t'e marks'all be re+istered in t'e Patent and (rademark Fffice" acertificate of re+istration s'all be issued for t'ose +oods orservices recited in t'e statement of use for w'ic' t'e mark isentitled to re+istration" and notice of re+istration s'all bepublis'ed in t'e Ffficial

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    15/43

    )edinol v. Ne"ro as7 0TTA4, 2--3 S p. 3$

    4nowled+e t'at a mark is not in use on a particular product" or recklessdisre+ard for t'e trut'" is all t'at is re=uired to establis' fraud in t'eprocurement of a re+istration.

    Firco v. American Telep&one # Tele*rap& 0TTA4, 1881 p. 18+('e ri+'t to rel/ upon t'e constructive use date comes into e8istencewit' t'e filin+ of t'e intent;to;use application and t'e intent;to;useapplicant can rel/ upon t'is date in an opposition brou+'t b/ a t'irdpart/ assertin+ common law ri+'ts.

    %arnerision v. mpire of Carolina 0Second Circ"it, 188 p. 2-1

    As lon+ as an I(> applicants privile+e 'as not e8pired" a court ma/ notenjoin it from makin+ t'e use necessar/ for re+istration on t'e +roundst'at anot'er part/ 'as used t'e mark subse=uent to t'e filin+ of t'eI(> application.

    S&alom C&ildren@s %ear v. In:%ear 0TTA4, 1883 p. 2-8

    ('e =uestion of mere descriptiveness cannot be resolved at summar/jud+ment.

    Application of American Psc& Association 0TTA4, 188 p. 2-8

    8aminers are re=uired to e8amine intent to use applications under t'esame procedures and standards as use;based applications.

    acin* C&ampions v. )attel 0TTA4, 2--- p. 21-

    An indicator of scale wit' a pre;e8istin+ meanin+ ma/ be descriptive.

    2.5. orei!n App"ication

    66 d3 An application for re+istration of a mark under section 1%1"1%" 1%6" or 191 of t'is title or under subsection e3 of t'is section"filed b/ a person described in subsection b3 of t'is section w'o 'aspreviousl/ dul/ filed an application for re+istration of t'e same mark inone of t'e countries described in subsection b3 of t'is section s'all beaccorded t'e same force and effect as would be accorded to t'e sameapplication if filed in t'e >nited States on t'e same date on w'ic' t'eapplication was first filed in suc' forei+n countr/J Provided" ('at;;

    13 t'e application in t'e >nited States is filed wit'in si8 mont'sfrom t'e date on w'ic' t'e application was first filed in t'eforei+n countr/T

    !3 t'e application conforms as nearl/ as practicable to t'ere=uirements of t'is c'apter" includin+ a statement t'at t'eapplicant 'as a bona fide intention to use t'e mark in commerceT

    ,

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    16/43

    3 t'e ri+'ts ac=uired b/ t'ird parties before t'e date of t'efilin+ of t'e first application in t'e forei+n countr/ s'all in no wa/be affected b/ a re+istration obtained on an application filedunder t'is subsectionT

    63 not'in+ in t'is subsection s'all entitle t'e owner of a

    re+istration +ranted under t'is section to sue for acts committedprior to t'e date on w'ic' 'is mark was re+istered in t'is countr/unless t'e re+istration is based on use in commerce.

    e3 A mark dul/ re+istered in t'e countr/ of ori+in of t'e forei+napplicant ma/ be re+istered on t'e principal re+ister if eli+ible"ot'erwise on t'e supplemental re+ister in t'is c'apter provided. Suc'applicant s'all submit" wit'in suc' time period as ma/ be prescribedb/ t'e Director" a true cop/" a p'otocop/" a certification" or a certifiedcop/ of t'e re+istration in t'e countr/ of ori+in of t'e applicant. ('eapplication must state t'e applicants bona fide intention to use t'e

    mark in commerce" but use in commerce s'all not be re=uired prior tore+istration.

    -- a3 A re=uest for e8tension of protection of an internationalre+istration to t'e >nited States t'at t'e International 5ureautransmits to t'e >nited States Patent and (rademark Fffice s'all bedeemed to be properl/ filed in t'e >nited States if suc' re=uest" w'enreceived b/ t'e International 5ureau" 'as attac'ed to it a declarationof bona fide intention to use t'e mark in commerce t'at is verified b/t'e applicant for" or 'older of" t'e international re+istration.

    3. Boss of Trademark i*&ts

    3.1. #enericis$

    A +eneric word cannot be a trademark.

    4aer v. ?nited Dr"* 0SDN=, 1821 p. 312

    ('e =uestion in +enericism isJ w'at do t'e bu/ers understand b/ t'eword) Does it indicate t'e t'in+ or t'e source)

    Sti7 v. ?nited )erc&ants 0SDN=, 18+ p. 31$

    Competitors ma/ not K+enericise eac' ot'ers marks.

    in*:Seele T&ermos v. Aladdin 0Second Circ"it, 183 p. 32+

    A mark can become +eneric but not re=uire de;re+istration alt'ou+' itstrademark use ma/ be restricted as a conse=uence.

    D"Pont v. =os&ida 0DN=, 18$ p. 332

    Surve/s s'ould focus on t'e trademarksi+nificance of a word. (o be+eneric" t'ere must be a clear and convincin+ s'owin+ t'at t'e

    9

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    17/43

    principal si+nificance of a word is as a descriptive term rat'er t'an as atrademark.

    3.2. Secondary Meanin!

    &'en t'e public comes to reco+niHe a term as identif/in+ +oods or

    services comin+ from a sin+le" if anon/mous" source" t'e term 'asac=uired Ksecondar/ meanin+ and is entitled to trademark status.

    &'en t'e public identifies a term wit' a sin+le source of ori+in" eit'er

    1. not reco+niHin+ it as a brand name" but knowin+ t'ere is a sin+lesource for e8ample" a monopol/3T or

    !. w'en t'e producer selects a term t'at is alread/ +eneric andestablis'es public trademark reco+nition"

    t'ere is de facto secondary meaningand no trademark protection.

    America Enline v. AT # T 09o"rt& Circ"it, 2--1 p. 33>sin+ a p'rase in a functional manner does not entitle it to trademarkprotection. ('e fart'er a would;be mark falls from t'e 'eartland ofcommon meanin+ and usa+e" t'e more Kdistinctive t'e would;bemark can become.

    )icrosoft v. Bindows.com 0%D %as&, 2--3 p. 3

    Commercial" media" dictionar/ and lin+uistic evidence assist t'e court.

    (arle Davidson v. ;rottanelli 0Second Circ"it, 1888 p. 35

    ('e public 'as no more ri+'t t'an a manufacturer to wit'draw from t'e

    lan+ua+e a +eneric term and accord it trademark si+nificance" at leastas lon+ as t'e term retains some +eneric meanin+.

    Etokoama v. %ine of /apan Import 0Second Circ"it, 1888 p. 358

    A word t'at is +eneric in a lan+ua+e ot'er t'an n+lis' cannot be used.

    (offman:Ba oc&e v. )edisca 0NDN=, 1888 p. 358

    If a +eneric name becomes associated wit' a particular producer" acompetitor cannot use it in a wa/ t'at causes confusion and must takereasonable means to distin+uis' its product from t'e senior user.

    Dial:A:)attress v. Pa*e 0Second Circ"it, 18+8 p. 3$5

    ('e lack of protection for +eneric terms does not re=uire t'at acompetitor remain free to confuse t'e public wit' a telep'one number.

    (olida Inns v. +-- eservation 0Si7t& Circ"it, 188 p. 3$5

    (akin+ advanta+e of confusion" w'ile not creatin+ it" is not a violationof t'e Act.

    1

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    18/43

    3.3. Abandon$ent

    6% A mark s'all be deemed to be Kabandoned w'en eit'er of t'efollowin+ occursJ

    13&'en its use 'as been discontinued wit' intent not to resume suc'use. Intent not to resume ma/ be inferred from circumstances.Nonuse for t'ree consecutive /ears s'all be prima facie evidence ofabandonment. K>se of a mark means t'e bona fide use of t'atmark made in t'e ordinar/ course of trade" and not made merel/ toreserve a ri+'t in a mark.

    !3&'en an/ course of conduct of t'e owner" includin+ acts ofomission as well as commission" causes t'e mark to become t'e+eneric name for t'e +oods or services on or in connection wit'w'ic' it is used or ot'erwise to lose its si+nificance as a mark.Purc'aser motivation s'all not be a test for determinin+abandonment under t'is para+rap'.

    (wo elementsJ non;use and intent not to resume.

    Silverman v. C4S 0Second Circ"it, 18+8 p. 3$

    KIntent not to resume means intent not to resume use in t'ereasonabl/ foreseeable future" not never. C'allen+in+ infrin+in+ uses isnot use" and sporadic licensin+ for essentiall/ non;commercial uses ofa mark is not sufficient use to forestall abandonment.

    77on Corp. v. ("m!le 7ploration 09ift& Circ"it, 18+3 p. 33

    An intention to resume use after consolidatin+ in a sin+le brand is use.

    Indianapolis Colts v. 4altimore 9oot!all 0Sevent& Circ"it, 1885 p. 35

    If t'e mark c'an+es" or can be seen as t'e unc'an+in+ part" t'e oldmark is not abandoned. Appropriation of an abandoned mark mi+'t beallowed if t'e subse=uent users take reasonable precautions toprevent confusion.

    4ase!all Props v. Sed Non let Denari"s 0SDN=, 1883 p. 35

    If t'e mark c'an+es" or can be seen as t'e c'an+in+ part" t'e old markis be abandoned.

    "st nvironment v. Te"nissen 0Sevent& Circ"it, 188 p. 3&'ere t'e new mark is not confusin+l/ similar" t'e old mark isabandoned.

    Clark # 9reeman v. (eartland 0SDN=, 1883 p. 3+

    &'ere a mark is assi+ned Kin +ross" wit'out t'e accompan/in++oodwill" t'e assi+nment is invalid and t'e assi+nee must rel/ on 'is or

    11

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    19/43

    'er own use to establis' priorit/. A mark can be validl/ transferredwit'out tan+ible assets if t'e recipient continues to produces +oods oft'e same =ualit/ and nature previousl/ associated wit' t'e mark.

    =oc"m v. Covin*ton 0TTA4, 18+2 p. 31

    Inade=uatel/ controlled licensin+ constitutes abandonment.

    ?niversit 4ookstore v. 4oard of e*ents 0TTA4, 1885 p. 35

    An owner is not re=uired to act immediatel/ a+ainst ever/ possibleinfrin+in+ use to avoid a 'oldin+ of abandonment.

    4arcamerica v. Tfield Importers 0Nint& Circ"it, 2--2 S p. +2

    ('e lack of an e8press contract ri+'t to inspect and supervise alicensees operations is not conclusive evidence of lack of control.('ere need not be formal =ualit/ control w'ere t'e public will not bedeceived. ('ere must be some evidence of bein+ familiar wit' or

    rel/in+ on t'e licensees efforts to control =ualit/.

    5. e*istration

    4.1. Process

    Steps p. 215

    1. Clearin+ t'e proposed mark

    !. stablis'in+ ri+'ts in mark useI(> application3

    . Fbtainin+ federal re+istration of markJ

    a. Preparation of t'e application

    b. :ilin+ t'e application

    c. 8amination b/ P(F

    d. Publication for opposition

    6. Maintenance of (rademark #i+'ts

    Advanta*es of Trademark e*istration p. 221

    1. Nationwide protection from t'e date of t'e application.

    !. Incontestabilit/.

    . &arnin+ to ot'ers.

    6. 5arrin+ imports

    %. Protection a+ainst counterfeitin+

    -. videntiar/ advanta+es

    1!

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    20/43

    2. Confirms owners'ip and validit/.

    S"pplemental e*ister

    :or marks not capable of re+istration on t'e principal re+ister. >sere=uired.

    T&e Notice of e*istration

    :ailure to use suc' notice results in a bar to an award of profits ordama+es in an infrin+ement suit involvin+ a re+istered trademarkabsent a findin+ t'at a defendant 'ad actual notice of t'e re+istration.

    )aintenance and enewal of e*istration

    , a3 ac' re+istration s'all remain in force for 1 /ears" e8cept t'att'e re+istration of an/ mark s'all be canceled b/ t'e Director forfailure to compl/ wit' t'e provisions of subsection b3 of t'is section"upon t'e e8piration of t'e followin+ time periods" as applicableJ

    13 :or re+istrations issued pursuant to t'e provisions of t'isc'apter" at t'e end of - /ears followin+ t'e date of re+istration.

    !3 :or re+istrations publis'ed under t'e provisions of section1-!c3 of t'is title" at t'e end of - /ears followin+ t'e date ofpublication under suc' section.

    3 :or all re+istrations" at t'e end of eac' successive 1;/earperiod followin+ t'e date of re+istration.

    b3 Durin+ t'e 1;/ear period immediatel/ precedin+ t'e end of t'eapplicable time period set fort' in subsection a3 of t'is section" t'e

    owner of t'e re+istration s'all pa/ t'e prescribed fee and file in t'epatent and trademark office;;

    13 an affidavit settin+ fort' t'ose +oods or services recited int'e re+istration on or in connection wit' w'ic' t'e mark is in usein commerce and suc' number of specimens or facsimiless'owin+ current use of t'e mark as ma/ be re=uired b/ t'eDirectorT or

    !3 an affidavit settin+ fort' t'ose +oods or services recited int'e re+istration on or in connection wit' w'ic' t'e mark is not inuse in commerce and s'owin+ t'at an/ suc' nonuse is due to

    special circumstances w'ic' e8cuse suc' nonuse and is not dueto an/ intention to abandon t'e mark.

    9 a3 L eac' re+istration ma/ be renewed for periods of 1 /ears att'e end of eac' successive 1;/ear period followin+ t'e date ofre+istration upon pa/ment of t'e prescribed fee and t'e filin+ of awritten application L

    1

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    21/43

    4.2. %ypes o& Mar's

    Service )arks p. 22$

    6% ('e term Kservice mark means an/ word" name" s/mbol" ordevice" or in/ combination t'ereof

    13used b/ a person" or

    !3w'ic' a person 'as a bona fide intention to use in commerce andapplies to re+ister on t'e principal re+ister establis'ed b/ t'isAct"

    to identif/ and distin+uis' t'e services of one person" includin+ auni=ue service" from t'e services of ot'ers and to indicate t'e sourceof t'e services" even if t'at source is unknown. (itles" c'aracternames" and ot'er distinctive features of radio or television pro+ramsma/ be re+istered as service marks notwit'standin+ t'at t'e/" or t'epro+rams" ma/ advertise t'e +oods of t'e sponsor.

    Collective )ark

    6% ('e term Kcollective mark means a trademark or service mark

    13used b/ t'e members of a cooperative" an association" or ot'ercollective +roup or or+aniHation" or

    !3w'ic' suc' cooperative" association" or ot'er collective +roup oror+aniHation 'as a bona fide intention to use in commerce andfiles an application to re+ister on t'e principal re+isterestablis'ed b/ t'is Act" and includes marks indicatin+members'ip in a union" an association" or ot'er or+aniHation.

    Certification )ark

    6% ('e term Kcertification mark means an/ word" name" s/mbol" ordevice" or an/ combination t'ereof

    13used b/ a person ot'er t'an its owner" or

    !3w'ic' its owner 'as a bona fide intention to permit a personot'er t'an t'e owner to use in commerce and files an applicationto re+ister on t'e principal re+ister establis'ed b/ t'is Act"

    to certif/ re+ional or ot'er ori+in" material" mode of manufacture"

    =ualit/" accurac/" or ot'er c'aracteristics of suc' persons +oods orservices or t'at t'e work or labor on t'e +oods or services wasperformed b/ members of a union or ot'er or+aniHation.

    does not indicate source but meetin+ of criteria

    cannot be used b/ owner to identif/ source

    owner cannot c'ose users arbitraril/

    16

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    22/43

    a re+ional certification mark will not be deemed to 'ave become a+eneric term as applied to particular +oods unless it appears t'at it'as lost its si+nificance as an indication of re+ional ori+in for t'ose+oods

    $. 4ars to e*istration

    5.1. Scanda"ous( dispara!in! and deceptive

    !a3 of t'e an'am Act pro'ibits re+istration of a mark t'at

    a3 consists of or comprises immoral" deceptive" or scandalousmatter" or matter w'ic' ma/ dispara+e or falsel/ su++est aconnection wit' persons" livin+ or dead" institutions" beliefs" ornational s/mbols" or brin+ t'em into contempt" or disrepute.

    In re 4ad 9ro* 4rewer 01888 p. 228

    An animal @+ivin+ t'e fin+er is not obscene. ('e +esture itself is notobscene.

    (arGo v. Pro:9oot!all 0D DC, 2--3 S p. 38

    (o determine w'et'er matter ma/ be dispara+in+ etc." t'e courtundertakes a two step process of considerin+" first" t'e likel/ meanin+of t'e matter in =uestion and" second" w'et'er t'at meanin+ ma/ bedispara+in+. @Scandalous looks at t'e reaction of societ/ as a w'ole.@Dispara+e looks at t'e views of t'e referenced +roup" as does@contempt and @disrepute. ('is is considered as of t'e date ofre+istration.

    5.2. Deceptive Matter p. 253

    ! a3J absolute bar" cannot be rescued under section !f3 of t'ean'am Act b/ s'owin+ t'at a mark K'as become distinctive t'rou+'a s'owin+ of secondar/ meanin+.

    ! e3 13J merel/ deceptivel/ misdescriptive marks cannot bere+istered unless under ! f3" secondar/ meanin+ can bedemonstrated.

    :ederal Circuit t'ree;step test for determinin+ deceptiveness In reBudge Mfg.3J

    13Is t'e term misdescriptive of t'e c'aracter" =ualit/" function"composition or use of t'e +oods)

    !3If so" are prospective purc'asers likel/ to believe t'at t'emisdescription actuall/ describes t'e +oods)

    3If so" is t'e misdescription likel/ to affect t'e decision to purc'ase)

    1%

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    23/43

    If t'e first two =uestions in t'e test are answered in t'e affirmative"but not t'e t'ird =uestion" t'en t'e mark is deceptivel/ misdescriptive.If onl/ t'e first =uestion is answered in t'e affirmative" t'en t'e markma/ be arbitrar/ or su++estive since belief in t'e misdescription is ke/to a findin+ of deceptiveness.

    9la*, Coat of Arms or Et&er Insi*nia p. 2$5

    No mark ma/ be re+istered w'ic'

    ! b3 Consists of or comprises t'e fla+ or coat of arms or ot'erinsi+nia of t'e >nited States" or of an/ State or municipalit/" or of an/forei+n nation" or an/ simulation t'ereof.

    @ot'er insi+nia not to be interpreted broadl/T onl/ if of nationalaut'orit/

    distorted or merel/ su++estive marks are not barred under ! b3

    5.3. )a$e( Portrait or Si!nature( *ivin! Individua" orDeceased US President p. 25+

    No mark ma/ be re+istered w'ic'

    ! c3 Consists of or comprises a name" portrait" or si+natureidentif/in+ a particular livin+ individual e8cept b/ 'is written consent"or t'e name" si+nature" or portrait of a deceased President of t'e>nited States durin+ t'e life of 'is widow" if an/" e8cept b/ t'e writtenconsent of t'e widow.

    need not be full name

    5.4. Con&usion p. 25,

    No mark ma/ be re+istered w'ic'

    ! d3 consists of or comprises a mark w'ic' so resembles a markre+istered in t'e Patent and (rademark Fffice" or a mark or tradename previousl/ used in t'e >nited States b/ anot'er and notabandoned" as to be likel/" w'en used on or in connection wit' t'e+oods of t'e applicant" to cause confusion" or to cause mistake" or todeceive.

    N"trasweet v. # S 9oods p. 2$&'ere products are closel/ related" complementar/ products" t'eir useis likel/ to result in confusion as to source and sponsors'ip" use of adifferent font etc. is not relevant. If sales are de minimis" lack ofconfusion is not relevant.

    1-

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    24/43

    )ars&all 9ield v. )rs. 9ields Cookies 0TTA4, 1882 p. 2-

    If bot' marks are famous" t'e public will easil/ reco+niHe t'edifferences in t'e marks and distin+uis' between t'em. :actorsconsideredJ similarit/" use of surname" t/pe of product" trade dress"markets" motive.

    5.5. #eo!rap-ic %er$s p. 2+

    ! e3 also bars from re+istration a mark w'ic'" inter alia

    consists of a mark w'ic' L !3 w'en used on or in connection wit' t'e+oods of t'e applicant is primaril/ +eo+rap'icall/ descriptive of t'em"e8cept as indications of re+ional ori+in ma/ be re+istrable undersection 1%6 of t'is title" 3 w'en used on or in connection wit' t'e+oods of t'e applicant is primaril/ +eo+rap'icall/ deceptivel/misdescriptive of t'em" L

    ! f3 8cept as e8pressl/ e8cluded in subsections a3" b3" c3" d3" e3

    3" and e3 %3 of t'is section" not'in+ in t'is c'apter s'all prevent t'ere+istration of a mark used b/ t'e applicant w'ic' 'as becomedistinctive of t'e applicants +oods in commerce. ('e Director ma/accept as prima facie evidence t'at t'e mark 'as become distinctive"as used on or in connection wit' t'e applicants +oods in commerce"proof of substantiall/ e8clusive and continuous use t'ereof as a markb/ t'e applicant in commerce for t'e five /ears before t'e date onw'ic' t'e claim of distinctiveness is made. Not'in+ in t'is section s'allprevent t'e re+istration of a mark w'ic'" w'en used on or inconnection wit' t'e +oods of t'e applicant" is primaril/ +eo+rap'icall/deceptivel/ misdescriptive of t'em" and w'ic' became distinctive of

    t'e applicants +oods in commerce before December ," 199.

    American %alt&am %atc& v. ?nited States %atc& 0)ass, 1+88 p. 2-

    It is not possible to appropriate a +eo+rap'ical name but a junior usermust distin+uis' 'is +oods in some wa/.

    In re Nant"cket 0CCPA, 18+2 p. 22

    #e+istration of marks t'at would be perceived b/ potential purc'asersas describin+ or deceptivel/ misdescribin+ t'e +eo+rap'ic ori+in of t'e+oods ma/ be denied under ! e3 !3. If t'e +oods do not come from

    t'e place named" and t'e public makes no +oods;place associations"t'e public is not deceived and t'e mark is accordin+l/ not+eo+rap'icall/ deceptivel/ misdescriptive.

    In re California Innovations 09ederal Circ"it, 2--3 S p. 3

    NA:(A s'ifted t'e emp'asis for +eo+rap'icall/ descriptive marks toprevention of an/ public deception. Deceptiveness rat'er t'an lack of

    12

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    25/43

    distinctiveness is re=uired. ('e P(F must den/ re+istration under 1%! e3 3 if

    13 t'e primar/ si+nificance of t'e mark is a +enerall/ known+eo+rap'ic locationT

    !3 t'e consumin+ public is likel/ to believe t'e place identified b/t'e mark indicates t'e ori+in of t'e +oods bearin+ t'e mark" w'en infact t'e +oods do not come from t'at placeT and

    3 t'e misrepresentation was a material factor in t'e consumersdecision.

    5.+. Surna$es and /t-er Issues

    ! e3 63 providesJ

    No trademark b/ w'ic' t'e +oods of t'e applicant ma/ bedistin+uis'ed from t'e +oods of ot'ers s'all be refused

    re+istration on t'e principal re+ister on account of its natureunless itR

    e3 consists of a mark w'ic' L 63 is primaril/ merel/ a surname.

    #eflects common law. (estJ primar/ si+nificance to t'e public.

    In re 6"adrillion P"!lis&in* 0TTA4, 2--- p. 2+2

    Initial burden on (rademark 8aminin+ Attorne/ to establis' a primafaciecase t'at a mark is primaril/ merel/ a surname. :actorsJ

    i3 de+ree of surname rareness

    ii3 w'et'er an/one connected wit' applicant 'as t'e surnameiii3 w'et'er t'e term 'as an/ reco+niHed meanin+ ot'er t'an t'at of a

    surname

    iv3t'e structure and pronunciation or Klook and sound of t'esurname

    Peacea!le Planet v. T 0Sevent& Circ"it, 2--5 S p. 5

    ('e rationale of t'e personal;name rule is w'oll/ inapplicable tofictional c'aracters.

    N"merals, Betters and Initials p. 2+$As a +eneral rule" if merel/ differentiatin+ between +rades etc." notprotectable.

    If" in addition and primaril/" desi+nates t'e source" protectable.7uestion of fact re=uirin+ anal/sis of t'e manner of use" intent of user"and meanin+ understood b/ t'e consumerJ 'ave t'e/ ac=uiredsecondar/ meanin+)

    1,

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    26/43

    5.,. unctiona"ity p. 20+

    ! e3 %3 provides

    No trademark b/ w'ic' t'e +oods of t'e applicant ma/ bedistin+uis'ed from t'e +oods of ot'ers s'all be refusedre+istration on t'e principal re+ister on account of its natureunless itR

    e3 consists of a mark w'ic' L %3 comprises an/ matter t'at" asa w'ole" is functional.

    6"alite7 v. /aco!sen 0S"preme Co"rt, 188$ p. 2+

    It is t'e province of patent law to +rant a monopol/ over new productdesi+ns.

    In )orton:Norwic& Prod"cts 0CCPA, 18+2 p. 2+

    :unctionalit/ is alwa/s in relation to t'e desi+n of t'e t'in+" not t'et'in+ itself. It is determined in li+'t of Kutilit/" w'ic' is determined inli+'t of Ksuperiorit/ of desi+n and rests upon t'e foundation Kessentialto effective competition.

    In re 4a!ies 4eat 0TTA4, 188- p. 285

    (ask is not to ascertain t'e e8istence of utilit/ but t'e de+ree of desi+nutilit/.

    5.0. Incontestabi"ity

    b3 L conclusive evidence of t'e re+istrants e8clusive ri+'t to use

    t'e re+istered mark L 1% 8cept on a +round for w'ic' application to cancel ma/ be filed atan/ time under para+rap's 3 and %3 of section 16 of t'is Act" ande8cept to t'e e8tent" if an/" to w'ic' t'e use of a mark re+istered ont'e principal re+ister infrin+es a valid ri+'t ac=uired under t'e law ofan/ State or (erritor/ b/ use of a mark or trade name continuin+ froma date prior to t'e date of re+istration under t'is Act of suc' re+isteredmark" t'e ri+'t of t'e re+istrant to use suc' re+istered mark incommerce for t'e +oods or services on or in connection wit' w'ic'suc' re+istered mark 'as been in continuous use for five consecutive/ears subse=uent to t'e date of suc' re+istration and is still in use in

    commerce" s'all be incontestableJ Provided" t'atR

    13 t'ere 'as been no final decision adverse to re+istrants claim ofowners'ip of suc' mark for suc' +oods or services" or tore+istrants ri+'t to re+ister t'e same or to keep t'e same ont'e re+isterT and

    19

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    27/43

    !3 t'ere is no proceedin+ involvin+ said ri+'ts pendin+ in t'e Patentand (rademark Fffice or in a court and not finall/ disposed ofTand

    3 an affidavit is filed wit' t'e Commissioner wit'in one /ear aftert'e e8piration of an/ suc' five;/ear period settin+ fort' t'ose

    +oods ro services stated in t'e re+istration on or in connectionwit' w'ic' suc' mark 'as been in continuous use for suc' fiveconsecutive /ears and is still in use in commerce" and t'e ot'ermatters specified in para+rap's 13 and !3 of t'is sectionT and

    63 no incontestable ri+'t s'all be ac=uired in a mark w'ic' is t'e+eneric name for t'e +oods or services or a portion t'ereof" forw'ic' it is re+istered.

    Park@N 9l v. Dollar Park and 9l 0S"preme Co"rt, 18+$ p. 5$

    An incontestable mark can be infrin+ed even if it is merel/ descriptive.

    An incontestable mark cannot be c'allen+ed as merel/ descriptive.

    Defenses to Incontesta!l e*istered )arks p. 5+$

    16J t'e +rounds for cancellation" suc' as abandonment and+enericism

    b3J e8ceptions to incontestable status" evidentiar/ effect

    1. :raudulent ac=uisition of trademark re+istration or ofincontestable ri+'t to use mark.

    !. Abandonment of t'e mark.

    . >se of t'e mark to misrepresent source.6. >se of mark in a descriptive sense ot'er t'an as a trademark

    t'e so;called Kfair use defense3.

    %. imited territor/ defense.

    -. Prior re+istration b/ defendant.

    2. >se of mark to violate anti;trust laws.

    ,. =uitable principles.

    9. :unctionalit/.

    . Infrin*ement

    +.1. *i'e"i-ood o& Con&usion

    ! 13 An/ person w'o s'all" wit'out t'e consent of t'e re+istrantR

    a3 use in commerce an/ reproduction" counterfeit" cop/" orcolorable imitation of a re+istered mark in connection wit' t'esale" offerin+ for sale" distribution" or advertisin+ of an/ +oods or

    !

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    28/43

    services on or in connection wit' w'ic' suc' use is likel/ tocause confusion" or to cause mistake" or to deceive L s'all beliable in a civil action b/ t'e re+istrant for t'e remedies'ereinafter provided L

    Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad lects. Corp. 0Second Circ"it, 181 p. 381i+'t factors for evaluatin+ likeli'ood of confusion between non;identical +oods or servicesJ

    1. t'e stren+t' of plaintiffs markT

    !. t'e de+ree of similarit/ between plaintiffs and defendantsmarksT

    . t'e pro8imit/ of t'e products or servicesT

    6. t'e likeli'ood t'at plaintiff will brid+e t'e +apT

    %. evidence of actual confusionT

    -. defendants +ood fait' in adoptin+ t'e markT

    2. t'e =ualit/ of defendants product or serviceT

    ,. t'e sop'istication of t'e bu/ers.

    Core factors amon+st all circuitsJ

    stren+t' of mark

    similarit/ of +oods

    pro8imit/ of marks

    intent of infrin+er

    actual confusion

    Is t'e products are sufficientl/ different" is t'ere infrin+ement) BordenIce Cream v. Bordens Condensed Milk no infrin+ement3 but compareAunt emina Mills v. !igney " Co. could not use ot'ers mark forpancake batter for pancake s/rup3. #ale $lectric Corp. !obertsonuseof lock mark for flas'li+'ts infrin+ement3.

    6 a3 13 An/ person w'o" on or in connection wit' an/ +oods orservices" or an/ container for +oods" uses in commerce an/ word"

    term" name" s/mbol" or device" or an/ combination t'ereof" or an/false desi+nation of ori+in" false or misleadin+ description of fact" orfalse or misleadin+ representation of fact" w'ic'R

    A3 is likel/ to cause confusion" or to cause mistake" or to deceiveas to t'e affiliation" connection" or association of suc' personwit' anot'er person" or as to t'e ori+in" sponsors'ip" or approvalof 'is or 'er +oods" services" or commercial activities b/ anot'erperson" or

    !1

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    29/43

    53 in commercial advertisin+ or promotion" misrepresents t'enature" c'aracteristics" =ualities" or +eo+rap'ic ori+in of 'is or'er or anot'er persons +oods" services" or commercial activities"

    s'all be liable in a civil action b/ an/ person w'o believes t'at 'e ors'e is or is likel/ to be dama+ed b/ suc' act.

    !3 As used in t'is subsection" t'e term Oan/ personO includes an/State" instrumentalit/ of a State or emplo/ee of a State orinstrumentalit/ of a State actin+ in 'is or 'er official capacit/. An/State" and an/ suc' instrumentalit/" officer" or emplo/ee" s'all besubject to t'e provisions of t'is c'apter in t'e same manner and to t'esame e8tent as an/ non+overnmental entit/.

    3 In a civil action for trade dress infrin+ement under t'is c'apter fortrade dress not re+istered on t'e principal re+ister" t'e person w'oasserts trade dress protection 'as t'e burden of provin+ t'at t'ematter sou+'t to be protected is not functional.

    (wo pron+sJ need to s'ow use in commerce and likeli'ood ofconfusion.

    Similarit/ e8amined at levelsJ

    si+'t

    sound

    meanin+

    ;allo %iner v. ConsorHio del ;allo Nero 0ND Cal., 1881 p. 5--

    vidence of ot'er unrelated potential infrin+ers is irrelevant to claimsof trademark infrin+ement. A famil/ name is entitled to protection solon+ as it 'as ac=uired a reco+niHed Ksecondar/ meanin+. Similarit/of marks is jud+ed b/ sound" appearance and meanin+. If +oodscompete for sales" infrin+ement usuall/ will be found if t'e marks aresufficientl/ similar t'an confusion can be e8pected. Confusion betweenmarks is +enerall/ more likel/ w'ere t'e +oods are ine8pensive.vidence of actual confusion is onl/ one factor to be considered. Intentis not necessar/ but will be presumed if defendant 'as knowled+e.

    9leisc&mann Distillin* v. )aier 4rewin* 0Nint& Circ"it, 183 p. 51

    >sin+ anot'ers mark wit'out advice leads to a presumption of intentto confuse.

    (olida Inns v. (olida E"t in America 09ift& Circ"it, 183 p. 51

    If defendant does not act to create confusion" t'ere ma/ not be intentto confuse.

    !!

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    30/43

    Academ v. Creative (o"se 0Nint& Circ"it, 1881 p. 51

    &'ere evidence s'ows t'at one compan/ deliberatel/ adoptedanot'ers name to obtain advanta+e from t'e ot'ers +ood will" wema/ infer a likeli'ood of confusion.

    )o!il Eil Corp v. Pe*as"s Petrole"m 0Second Circ"it, 18+ p. 5258ample of application of %olaroidfactors.

    T&e Network Network v. C4S 0CD Cal, 2--- p. 531

    ('e test of actual confusion is not w'et'er an/one could possiblybeconfused" but w'et'er t'e Kreasonabl/ prudent consumer is likel/ tobe confused. &'ere t'ere is no overlap" t'ere is no confusion. Initialinterest confusion re=uires improper benefit from a mark 'olders storeof +oodwill.

    Pla!o v. Netscape 0Nint& Circ"it, 2--5 S p. ++

    Initial interest confusion is confusion t'at creates initial interest in acompetitors product. It impermissibl/ capitaliHes on t'e +oodwillassociated wit' a mark. ('is is tested usin+ t'e Nint' Circuits&leekcraft ei+'t;factor test" wit' some fle8ibilit/ for t'e Internetconte8t. ConcurrenceJ Brookfieldsu++ests t'at even if banner ads areclearl/ labeled" t'ere is violation" but t'is ma/ not be so.

    Pla!o v. ?niversal Tel:A:Talk 0D Pa, 188+ p. 538

    >se of marks in >#s and email addresses ma/ lead to confusion as tot'e source or sponsors'ip of a website.

    +.2. e"evant Pub"ic

    )astercrafters Clock and adio v. ac&eron and Constantin:BeCo"ltre %atc&es 0Second Circ"it, 18$$ p. 55-

    ('e actionable 'arm" in a secondar/;meanin+ case" ma/ result eit'erfrom t'e likeli'ood a3 of loss of customers or b3 loss of reputation" orc3 of bot'. Suc' loss can result from t'e customers belief t'at t'ecompetin+ article derives from t'e same source as t'at of t'e part/complainin+T and it matters not w'et'er t'e customers know just w'ois t'e source. ('e intention to reap financial benefits from t'e cop/in+

    is of major importance if t'ere is a likeli'ood of confusion.

    9o7wort& v. C"stom Tees 0ND ;a, 188$ p. 552

    ('e K+ettin+;t'e;foot;in;t'e;door aspect of confusion is si+nificant tot'e likeli'ood of confusion anal/sis because t'e relevant concern is notconfusion t'rou+' a side;b/;side comparison but w'et'er confusion islikel/ w'en onl/ one product is t'e onl/ product on t'e s'elf. ('eimportant t'in+ is t'at" w'et'er t'e consumer discerns t'e trut' or

    !

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    31/43

    +ives it no t'ou+'t w'atsoever" t'e fact t'at some mental processmust be performed in order to understand t'e association indicates notonl/ an unfair competitive advanta+e but t'e actual embodiment ofconfusion.

    4lock!"ster v. Balco 0D )ic&, 1885 p. 553('e issue is t'e de+ree of likeli'ood t'at t'e alle+edl/ infrin+in+ namewould attract potential customers based on t'e reputation earned b/t'e owner of t'e ori+inal mark" not w'et'er t'e/ will realiHe t'e errorlater.

    )"nsin*wear v. /ocke 0D )inn, 1885 p. 55$

    ('e similarit/ ma/ be assessed in terms of pre;sale rat'er t'an after;sale.

    +.3. everse Con&usion

    (arlem %iHards v. N4A Properties 0D N/, 188 p. 55+

    #everse confusion arises w'en a lar+er" more powerful entit/ adoptst'e trademark of a smaller" less powerful trademark user and t'ereb/causes confusion as to t'e ori+in of t'e senior trademark users +oodsor services. ('is is anal/Hed usin+ t'e normal factors.

    Dreamwerks v. S; St"dio 0Nint& Circ"it, 188+ p. 5$1

    In a reverse infrin+ement case" t'ere is no =uestion of palmin+ off"since neit'er junior nor senior user wis'es to sip'on off t'e ot'ers+oodwill. ('e =uestion is w'et'er consumers doin+ business wit' t'esenior user mi+'t mistakenl/ believe t'e/ are dealin+ wit' t'e junioruser.

    . Trade Dress('is is t'e total ima+e of t'e product or serviceJ t'e packa+in+" t'eproduct itself. It is protectable if it 'as distinctiveness" t'rou+'in'erent distinctiveness or secondar/ meanin+.

    ,.1. %rade Dress In&rin!e$ent

    Two Pesos v. Taco Ca!ana 0S"preme Co"rt, 1882 p. $1-An identif/in+ mark is distinctive and capable of bein+ protected if iteit'er 13 is in'erentl/ distinctive or !3 'as ac=uired distinctivenesst'rou+' secondar/ meanin+. (rade dress w'ic' is in'erentl/ distinctiveis protectable under 6 a3 wit'out a s'owin+ t'at it 'as ac=uiredsecondar/ meanin+.

    !6

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    32/43

    ,.2. In-erent Distinctiveness

    %al:)art v. Samara 4rot&ers 0S"preme Co"rt, 2--- p. $18

    Desi+n" like color" is not in'erentl/ distinctive" as it is not intended toidentif/ t'e source and a reasonable test is difficult to devise. ('e

    trade dress in ()o %esoswas not product desi+n but eit'er productpacka+in+" or some tertium *uid. A products desi+n is distinctive" andt'erefore protectable" onl/ upon a s'owin+ of secondar/ meanin+.

    ,.3. unctiona"ity

    6 a3 3 In a civil action for trade dress infrin+ement under t'isc'apter for trade dress not re+istered on t'e principal re+ister" t'eperson w'o asserts trade dress protection 'as t'e burden of provin+t'at t'e matter sou+'t to be protected is not functional.

    Traf9i7 Devices v. )arketin* Displas 0S"preme Co"rt, 2--1 p. $2$

    A utilit/ patent is stron+ evidence t'at t'e features t'erein claimed arefunctional. &'ere an e8pired patent claimed t'e features in =uestion"one w'o seeks to establis' trade dress protection must carr/ t'e'eav/ burden of s'owin+ t'at t'e feature is not functional. A feature isfunctional w'en it is a competitive necessit/" w'en it is essential to t'euse or purpose of t'e device or w'en it affects t'e cost or =ualit/ oft'e device.

    Beat&erman v. Cooper Ind"stries 0Nint& Circ"it, 1888 p. $33

    (rade dress must be viewed as a w'ole" but w'ere t'e w'ole is

    not'in+ ot'er t'an t'e assembla+e of functional parts" and w'ere event'e arran+ement and combination of t'e parts is desi+ned to result tosuperior performance" it is semantic tricker/ to sa/ t'at t'ere is stillsome sort of separate Koverall appearance w'ic' is non;functional. Ift'is was so" not'in+ is utilitarian.

    P"!lications International v. Bandoll 0Sevent& Circ"it, 188+ p. $3$

    ('e desi+n of a cookbook is not trade dress. (rademark and tradedress law do not protect ori+inalit/T t'e/ protect si+nifiers of source.

    Tie Tec& v. inedne 0Nint& Circ"it, 2--2 S p. 1-2

    A customers preference of a particular functional aspect of a productis w'oll/ distinct from a customers desire to be assured t'at aparticular entit/ made" sponsored" or endorsed a product.

    co )an"fact"rin* v. (onewell 0Sevent& Circ"it, 2--3 S p. 1-5

    Incontestabilit/ does not avoid t'e =uestion of w'et'er a desi+n isfunctional.

    !%

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    33/43

    ,.4. %rade Dress In&rin!e$ent

    4est Cellars v. ;rape 9inds 0SDN=, 2--- p. $3+

    (o establis' a claim of trade dress infrin+ement under 6 a3" aplaintiff must demonstrate 13 Kt'at its trade dress is eit'er in'erentl/

    distinctive or t'at it 'as ac=uired distinctiveness t'rou+' a secondar/meanin+" !3 Kt'at t'ere is a likeli'ood of confusion betweendefendants trade dress and plaintiffs" and 3 w'ere t'e dress 'asbeen not been re+istered" t'at t'e dress 'as not been re+istered" t'att'e desi+n is non;functional. In'erent distinctiveness is evaluated b/considerin+ if" overall" it is arbitrar/" fanciful or su++estive. (rade dresswill t/picall/ be arbitrar/ and fanciful. An idea cannot be protectedunder trade dress law" alt'ou+' a concrete e8pression of an idea ma/.Fnce it is establis'ed t'at trade dress is protectable" t'e usual anal/sisfor likeli'ood of confusion is done.

    4est Cellars v. %ine )ade Simple 0SDN=, 2--3 S p. 1-('e =uestion is w'et'er t'e similar features or t'e diver+ent onesdominate t'e viewers response to t'e overall Klook. ('is issubjective. Marketin+ t'emes cannot be protected b/ trade dress law.

    To )an"f. of America v. (elmsle:Spears 0SDN=, 188 p. $$3

    ('e concept of @trade dress is an e8pansive one.

    Conopco v. )a Dept. Stores 09ederal Circ"it, 1885 p. $$$

    In t'e i+'t' Circuit" to establis' entitlement to monetar/ relief" a

    plaintiff must s'ow actual confusion" w'ile to establis' entitlement toinjunctive relief" it is sufficient if t'e plaintiff establis'es likeli'ood ofconfusion. Actual confusion cannot be presumed from intent to cop/t'e overall packa+e desi+n.

    )cNeil:PPC v. ;"ardian Dr"* 0D )ic&, 188 p. $$

    If t'e intention is to appropriate trade dress to confuse consumers att'e first point of contact" even if t'e consumers ma/ realiHe t'is later"t'is is a violation.

    +. Dil"tion

    0.1. De&inition o& Di"ution

    ('e +radual w'ittlin+ awa/ or dispersion of t'e identit/ and 'old upont'e public mind of t'e mark or name b/ its use upon non;competin++oods.

    6 c3 13 ('e owner of a famous mark s'all be entitled" subject tot'e principles of e=uit/ and upon suc' terms as t'e court deems

    !-

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    34/43

    reasonable" to an injunction a+ainst anot'er persons commercial usein commerce of a mark or trade name" if suc' use be+ins after t'emark 'as become famous and causes dilution of t'e distinctive =ualit/of t'e mark" and to obtain suc' ot'er relief as is provided in t'issubsection. In determinin+ w'et'er a mark is distinctive and famous" a

    court ma/ consider factors suc' as" but not limited to;;A3 t'e de+ree of in'erent or ac=uired distinctiveness of t'emarkT

    53 t'e duration and e8tent of use of t'e mark in connection wit't'e +oods or services wit' w'ic' t'e mark is usedT

    C3 t'e duration and e8tent of advertisin+ and publicit/ of t'emarkT

    D3 t'e +eo+rap'ical e8tent of t'e tradin+ area in w'ic' t'e markis usedT

    3 t'e c'annels of trade for t'e +oods or services wit' w'ic' t'emark is usedT

    :3 t'e de+ree of reco+nition of t'e mark in t'e tradin+ areas andc'annels of trade used b/ t'e marks owner and t'e persona+ainst w'om t'e injunction is sou+'tT

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    35/43

    A3 :air use of a famous mark b/ anot'er person in comparativecommercial advertisin+ or promotion to identif/ t'e competin++oods or services of t'e owner of t'e famous mark.

    53 Noncommercial use of a mark.

    C3 All forms of news reportin+ and news commentar/. 6% ('e term OdilutionO means t'e lessenin+ of t'e capacit/ of afamous mark to identif/ and distin+uis' +oods or services" re+ardlessof t'e presence or absence of;;

    13 competition between t'e owner of t'e famous mark and ot'erparties" or

    !3 likeli'ood of confusion" mistake" or deception.

    0.2. State Di"ution Statutes

    in*lin* v. CeloHHi:ttelson C&evrolet 0Sevent& Circ"it, 18++ p. 8+Modif/in+ a mark will not prevent confusion if it remains similar. ('efact t'at a mark is coined or invented is not necessar/ to establis'distinctiveness. A likeli'ood of confusion is not necessar/ for a findin+of dilution. ('e injur/ caused b/ dilution will almost alwa/s beirreparable.

    )ead Data v. Toota 0Second Circ"it, 18+8 p. -1

    ('e concept of e8act identit/ in dilution 'as been broadened to t'at ofsubstantial similarit/. ('e fact t'at a mark 'as sellin+ power in alimited +eo+rap'ical or commercial area does not endow it wit' asecondar/ meanin+ for t'e public +enerall/. Not ever/ junior use of asimilar mark will dilute t'e senior mark. ('ere must be some mentalassociation. If a mark circulates onl/ in a limited market" it is unlikel/to be associated +enerall/ wit' t'e mark for a dissimilar productcirculatin+ elsew'ere.

    Deere v. )TD Prod"cts 0Second Circ"it, 1885 p. -

    Dilution is +enerall/ eit'er t'e blurrin+ of a marks productidentification or t'e tarnis'ment of t'e affirmative associations a mark'as come to conve/ but ma/ also include pokin+ fun" particularl/

    w'ere t'e alterations are made wit' bot' an incentive to diminis' t'efavorable attributes of t'e mark and an ample opportunit/ to promoteits products in wa/s t'at make no si+nificant alteration.

    (ormel 9oods v. /im (enson Prods. 0Second Circ"it, 188 p. 12

    (arnis'ment occurs w'en a mark is placed in t'e conte8t of se8ualactivit/" obscenit/" or ille+al activit/" and also w'en fun is poked.

    !,

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    36/43

    &'ere t'ere is no ne+ative associations and t'e products are notcompetin+" dilution ma/ not be found.

    0.3. Di"ution under t-e edera" Statute

    in*lin* 4ros. v. ?ta& Div. of Travel Devt. 09o"rt& Circ"it, 1888 p. 18KDilution under t'e federal Act consists of 13 a sufficient similarit/ ofmarks to evoke in consumers a mental association of t'e two t'at !3causes 3 actual 'arm to t'e senior marks economic value as aproduct;identif/in+ and advertisin+ a+ent.

    Panavision v. Toeppen 0Nint& Circ"it, 188+ p. 2

    #e+istration of a trademark as a domain is not a commercial use" butsellin+ t'e domain is. >se of a domain can constitute dilution.

    Aver Dennison v. S"mpton 0Nint& Circ"it, 1888 p. 32

    :amousness re=uires more t'an mere distinctiveness. :ame must beamon+st t'e relevant public. &orldwide use of a non;famous markdoes not establis' fame. A trademark re+istered as a domain ma/ beused for its non;trademark value.

    0.4. %rade Dress

    (ers&e 9oods v. )ars 0)D Pa, 188+ p. 5-

    If numerous ot'er companies use marks similar to t'e plaintiffs tradedress" t'ere is no need to +o furt'er and determine confusion. A failureto re+ister counts a+ainst a findin+ of fame. ('e factors are notwei+'ed in a mat'ematical wa/.

    I.P. B"nd v. o&ler 09irst Circ"it, 188+ p. 53

    A part/ w'o wis'es to establis' fame of t'e trade dress for w'ic'protection is sou+'t bears a si+nificantl/ burden t'an t'e burden ofestablis'in+ distinctiveness for infrin+ement purposes. ('e in=uir/ isinto w'et'er tar+et customers will perceive t'e products as essentiall/t'e same. Dilution applies to product desi+ns. Dilution applies even ift'ere is no customer confusion. ('e Sweet factors from Mead +ataarenot appropriate for dilution.

    Na!isco v. P9 4rands 0Second Circ"it, 1888 p. $-

    Distinctiveness is =uite different from fame. 5ot' distinctiveness andfame are re=uired under t'e statute. Actual confusion or likeli'ood ofconfusion are not necessar/ but actual confusion can be 'i+'l/probative of dilution. Proof of actual dilution is not necessar/.

    !9

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    37/43

    )osele v. Secret Catalo*"e 0S"preme Co"rt, 2--3 S p. 158

    Actual dilution must be establis'ed under t'e federal statute but t'econse=uences of dilution do not need to be proved. Mere mentalassociation is not sufficient. Circumstantial evidence ma/ suffice.

    8. Internet Domain Names

    .1. AntiCybersuattin! Consu$er Protection Act

    6 d3 13 A3 A person s'all be liable in a civil action b/ t'e owner ofa mark" includin+ a personal name w'ic' is protected as a mark undert'is section" if" wit'out re+ard to t'e +oods or services of t'e parties"t'at person

    i3 'as a bad fait' intent to profit from t'at mark" includin+ apersonal name w'ic' is protected as a mark under t'is sectionTand

    ii3 re+isters" traffics in" or uses a domain name t'at;;

    I3 in t'e case of a mark t'at is distinctive at t'e time ofre+istration of t'e domain name" is identical or confusin+l/similar to t'at markT

    II3 in t'e case of a famous mark t'at is famous at t'e timeof re+istration of t'e domain name" is identical orconfusin+l/ similar to or dilutive of t'at markT or

    III3 is a trademark" word" or name protected b/ reason ofsection 2- of (itle 1, or section !!%- of (itle -.

    53 i3 In determinin+ w'et'er a person 'as a bad fait' intent describedunder subpara+rap' a3" a court ma/ consider factors suc' as" but notlimited to

    I3 t'e trademark or ot'er intellectual propert/ ri+'ts of t'eperson" if an/" in t'e domain nameT

    II3 t'e e8tent to w'ic' t'e domain name consists of t'e le+alname of t'e person or a name t'at is ot'erwise commonl/ usedto identif/ t'at personT

    III3 t'e persons prior use" if an/" of t'e domain name inconnection wit' t'e bona fide offerin+ of an/ +oods or servicesT

    IE3 t'e persons bona fide noncommercial or fair use of t'e markin a site accessible under t'e domain nameT

    E3 t'e persons intent to divert consumers from t'e markowners online location to a site accessible under t'e domainname t'at could 'arm t'e +oodwill represented b/ t'e mark"eit'er for commercial +ain or wit' t'e intent to tarnis' or

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    38/43

    dispara+e t'e mark" b/ creatin+ a likeli'ood of confusion as tot'e source" sponsors'ip" affiliation" or endorsement of t'e siteT

    EI3 t'e persons offer to transfer" sell" or ot'erwise assi+n t'edomain name to t'e mark owner or an/ t'ird part/ for financial+ain wit'out 'avin+ used" or 'avin+ an intent to use" t'e domain

    name in t'e bona fide offerin+ of an/ +oods or services" or t'epersons prior conduct indicatin+ a pattern of suc' conductT

    EII3 t'e persons provision of material and misleadin+ falsecontact information w'en appl/in+ for t'e re+istration of t'edomain name" t'e persons intentional failure to maintainaccurate contact information" or t'e persons prior conductindicatin+ a pattern of suc' conductT

    EIII3 t'e persons re+istration or ac=uisition of multiple domainnames w'ic' t'e person knows are identical or confusin+l/similar to marks of ot'ers t'at are distinctive at t'e time of

    re+istration of suc' domain names" or dilutive of famous marksof ot'ers t'at are famous at t'e time of re+istration of suc'domain names" wit'out re+ard to t'e +oods or services of t'epartiesT and

    IU3 t'e e8tent to w'ic' t'e mark incorporated in t'e personsdomain name re+istration is or is not distinctive and famouswit'in t'e meanin+ of subsection c313 of t'is section.

    ii3 5ad fait' intent described under subpara+rap' A3 s'all notbe found in an/ case in w'ic' t'e court determines t'at t'eperson believed and 'ad reasonable +rounds to believe t'at t'e

    use of t'e domain name was a fair use or ot'erwise lawful.C3 In an/ civil action involvin+ t'e re+istration" traffickin+" or use of adomain name under t'is para+rap'" a court ma/ order t'e forfeiture orcancellation of t'e domain name or t'e transfer of t'e domain name tot'e owner of t'e mark.

    e

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    39/43

    6 d3 !3 A3 ('e owner of a mark ma/ file an in rem civilaction a+ainst a domain name in t'e judicial district in w'ic' t'edomain name re+istrar" domain name re+istr/" or ot'er domainname aut'orit/ t'at re+istered or assi+ned t'e domain name islocated if

    i3 t'e domain name violates an/ ri+'t of t'e owner of amark re+istered in t'e Patent and (rademark Fffice" orprotected under subsection a3 or c3 of t'is sectionT and

    ii3 t'e court finds t'at t'e owner;;

    I3 is not able to obtain in personamjurisdiction overa person w'o would 'ave been a defendant in a civilaction under para+rap' 13T or

    II3 t'rou+' due dili+ence was not able to find aperson w'o would 'ave been a defendant in a civil

    action under para+rap' 13 b/;;aa3 sendin+ a notice of t'e alle+ed violationand intent to proceed under t'is para+rap' tot'e re+istrant of t'e domain name at t'e postaland e;mail address provided b/ t'e re+istrantto t'e re+istrarT and

    bb3 publis'in+ notice of t'e action as t'e courtma/ direct promptl/ after filin+ t'e action.

    53 ('e actions under subpara+rap' A3ii3 s'all constituteservice of process.

    C3 In an in remaction under t'is para+rap'" a domain names'all be deemed to 'ave its situsin t'e judicial district in w'ic'

    i3 t'e domain name re+istrar" re+istr/" or ot'er domainname aut'orit/ t'at re+istered or assi+ned t'e domainname is locatedT or

    ii3 documents sufficient to establis' control and aut'orit/re+ardin+ t'e disposition of t'e re+istration and use of t'edomain name are deposited wit' t'e court.

    D3 i3 ('e remedies in an in rem action under t'is para+rap'

    s'all be limited to a court order for t'e forfeiture or cancellationof t'e domain name or t'e transfer of t'e domain name to t'eowner of t'e mark. upon receipt of written notification of a filed"stamped cop/ of a complaint filed b/ t'e owner of a mark in a>nited States district court under t'is para+rap'" t'e domainname re+istrar" domain name re+istr/" or ot'er domain nameaut'orit/ s'all

    !

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    40/43

    I3 e8peditiousl/ deposit wit' t'e court documentssufficient to establis' t'e courts control andaut'orit/ re+ardin+ t'e disposition of t'e re+istrationand use of t'e domain name to t'e courtT and

    II3 not transfer" suspend" or ot'erwise modif/ t'e

    domain name durin+ t'e pendenc/ of t'e action"e8cept upon order of t'e court.

    ii3 ('e domain name re+istrar or re+istr/ or ot'er domainname aut'orit/ s'all not be liable for injunctive ormonetar/ relief under t'is para+rap' e8cept in t'e case ofbad fait' or reckless disre+ard" w'ic' includes a willfulfailure to compl/ wit' an/ suc' court order.

    3 ('e civil action establis'ed under para+rap' 13 and t'e in remaction establis'ed under para+rap' !3" and an/ remed/ availableunder eit'er suc' action" s'all be in addition to an/ ot'er civil action or

    remed/ ot'erwise applicable.

    63 ('e in remjurisdiction establis'ed under para+rap' !3 s'all be inaddition to an/ ot'er jurisdiction t'at ot'erwise e8ists" w'et'er in remor in personam.

    (arrods v. Si7t Domain Names 09o"rt& Circ"it, 2--2 S p. 18

    In remjurisdiction is available for re+istrations ot'er t'an in bad fait'.

    .2. ICA)) and t-e UDP p. 01

    >nder Para+rap' 6 of t'e >#DP" t'e followin+ are re=uiredJ

    i3 t'at t'e domain name re+istered b/ t'e respondent is identical orconfusin+l/ similar to a trademark or service mark in w'ic' t'ecomplainant 'as ri+'tsT and"

    ii3 t'at t'e respondent 'as no le+itimate interests in respect of t'edomain nameT and"

    iii3 t'e domain name 'as been re+istered and used in bad fait'.

    %%9 v. 4osman 0%IPE, 2--- p. +-

    Ffferin+ for sale is Kuse of a domain name.

    (ewlett Packard v. 4"r*ar 0NA9, 2--- p. +15

    Pattern of re+istration and offerin+ for sale is bad fait'.

    Sprin*steen v. 4"r*ar 0%IPE, 2--1 p. +1

    #e+isterin+ a proper name" rat'er t'an a trademark" ma/ not be badfait'.

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    41/43

    B"cas N"rser v. ;rosse 0Si7t& Circ"it, 2--5

    A complaint site is not bad fait'.

    4arcelona.com v. A De 4arcelona 09o"rt& Circ"it, 2--3 S p. 1+2

    :orei+n law cannot be applied in an ACPA action.

    1-. Bawf"l ?na"t&oriHed ?ses

    1.1. air Use

    &'en an alle+ed infrin+er 'as used a term in +ood fait' primaril/ todescribe a product" rat'er t'an to identif/ it wit' a particular source"t'e use will be 'eld not to infrin+e t'e plaintiffs trademark w'ic' itresembles.

    ?nited States S&oe Corp v. 4rown ;ro"p 0SDN=, 188- p. 5+8

    ('e user of a descriptive word as a mark ma/ ac=uire t'e e8clusiveri+'t to use t'at word as an identifierof t'e product or source but ma/not bar ot'ers from usin+ t'e word in +ood fait' for descriptivepurposespertinent to t'eir products. ('ere must be evidence of alikeli'ood of confusion.

    Car:9res&ner v. SC /o&nson 0Second Circ"it, 188$ p. 583

    &'at matters is w'et'er t'e defendant is usin+ t'e protected word orima+e descriptivel/" and not as a mark. ('is depends on t'erelations'ip between t'e mark and t'e product described. :air usepermits ot'ers to use a protected mark to describe aspects of t'eir

    own +oods" provided t'e use is in +ood fait' and not as a mark.

    P v. Bastin* Impression 0Nint& Circ"it, 2--3 S p. 8+

    :air use can onl/ be used if t'ere is no likeli'ood of confusion.

    1.2. )o$inative air Use

    ('e use of a trademark b/ ot'er t'an t'e 'older to identif/ t'e'olders +oods.

    NET4 v. News America 0Nint& Circ"it, 1882 p. +51

    ('e subject must not be readil/ identifiable b/ t'e use of ot'er names.('e mark must be used as is reasonabl/ necessar/ to refer to t'eplaintiffs +oods or services. Fnl/ as muc' as necessar/ can be used.('e user must do not'in+ t'at would" in conjunction wit' t'e mark"su++est sponsors'ip or endorsement b/ t'e trademark 'older. &'eret'e use does not impl/ sponsors'ip or endorsement" t'e fact t'at it iscarried on for profit and in competition wit' t'e trademark 'oldersbusiness is irrelevant.

    6

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    42/43

    &'ere t'e defendant uses a trademark to describe t'e plaintiffsproduct" a commercial user is entitled to a nominative fair use defenseprovided 'e meets t'e followin+ t'ree re=uirementsJ

    1. product or service must be one not readil/ identifiable wit'outuse of t'e trademark

    !. onl/ so muc' of t'e mark or marks ma/ be used as is reasonabl/necessar/ to identif/ t'e product or service

    . user must do not'in+ t'at would" in conjuction wit' t'e mark"su++est sponsors'ip or endorsement b/ t'e trademark 'older

    Pla!o v. Terri %elles 0Nint& Circ"it, 2--2 S p. 181

    #epeated use of a mark is not nominative fair use.

    1.3. Parody

    Artistic e8pression" protected b/ t'e :irst Amendment.

  • 8/13/2019 NTU Law Briefs

    43/43

    )attel v. %alkin* )o"ntain 0Nint& Circ"it, 2--3 S p. 2-8

    &'en a mark assumes cultural si+nificance" t'e :irst Amendmentcomes into pla/. ('e public interest in free and artistic e8pression canoutwei+' its interest in potential consumer confusion. A defendantsuse is nominativew'ere 'e or s'e used t'e plaintiffs dress to describe

    or identif/ t'e plaintiffs product" even if t'e defendants ultimate +oalis to describe or identif/ 'is or 'er own product. Artistic and parodicwork is considered noncommercial speec' and" t'erefore" not subjectto a trademark dilution claim.