v. VIP Prods., LLC 666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (Mo., 2008) Anheuser-Busch makes a distinction between confusing and non-confusing parodies, the latter being protected as a parody. The important factors in the case were that the price point of the products was the same, they were directly competing goods and the survey showed that there was a level of confusion (30.3% were confused), in addition, consideration was placed on irreparable harm caused by the defendants use of the mark, the priority lay with the first to register the trademark, lastly the District Court considered public interest, i.e. whether the public was deceived. Similarly in Starbucks Corp v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc., 588 F3d 97 (2d Cir. 2007) the court distinguished Louis Vuitton S.A. v Haute Diggty Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) by holding that if (as in the Louis Vuitton case), the mark is used in non-competing goods, the defendant conveyed that it was not the source of the plaintiffs product and if the actual use of the mark does not impair the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark there may be an argument in favor of the defendant, however, if the defendant’s humor is not conveyed to the public, and does not increase the public identification of the plaintiff’s mark with its mark it will fail to establish
A Trademark is a distinctive mark, motto, device, or implement that a manufacturer stamps, prints, or other affixes to the goods it produces so that they can be identified on the market and their origins made known(Cross & Miller, 2012).
A trademark is one of the utmost valuable assets that an individual can possess. A trademark is not just a logo or a name, and it’s worth is not limited to the mark as such. A trademark is utilized in order to differentiate the services and goods of one trader to another. A trademark authorizes a business to exploit the market in order to entice customers, who permits them to recognize the marked good and likewise,
In today’s society, it is not difficult to fathom why an organization may place trademarks upon their designs or expressions. Such safety measures allow a company to ensure that others do not replicate their personality profile for commercial purposes, sanctioning for the delineation between organizations (Wensley and Caraway, 2014). A trial between Salam Toronto Publications v. Salam Toronto Inc. exemplified the lack of discrepancy between two companies and was investigated to detect trademark infringement. This lawsuit took place in Toronto, Ontario on Sept. 29, 2008, and lasted until Jan. 9th, 2009 (Salam Toronto Publications v. Salam Toronto Inc., 2009). The plaintiff, Salam Toronto Publications, administered by Mohsen Seyed Taghavi, was an Urdu/Farsi newspaper that had been operating since October 2000, printing issues pertaining to the Iranian population (Salam Toronto Publications v. Salam Toronto Inc., 2009). Mr. Taghavi indicated to the Court of Law that Salam Toronto Publications was registered on January 5th 2001 and "Salam Toronto” was trademarked, sanctioning for prima facie evidence of ownership (Salam Toronto Publications v. Salam Toronto Inc., 2009)(Wensley and Caraway, 2014). The plaintiff issued a trademark infringement following the depreciation of goodwill and breach of sections 7(b), 19, 20, and 22 of Canada's Trademark Act, and passing off (Salam Toronto Publications v. Salam Toronto Inc., 2009). The utmost deliberated section of the Trademark Act was section 20, which detailed that a trademark was violated only if it was used in “association with a confusing trade name” (Salam Toronto Publications v. Salam Toronto Inc., 2009). It was reported within the litigation that the defendant, Salam Toronto Immigratio...
Businesses filing the claim must also show that the business use of the trademark is expected to cause uncertainty as to the association, relationship or the affiliation among them. To establish a violation of the Lanham Act for either a registered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, or an unregistered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion.( A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir.
International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. (2005). The negative consequences of international intellectual property theft. Retrieved from http://www.iacc.org
I received high grades in the several intellectual property courses I took during law school. I even had the opportunity to audit a trademark law course, where I learned about the Trademark Act of 1946 and several major trademark law cases. Additionally, I was a blogger for American University Washington College of Law’s Intellectual Property Law Brief (IPLB). As a blogger, I produced articles discussing a range of intellectual property topics, such as geographically descriptive trademarks, Internet service providers’ liability, music sampling, and foreign trademark infringement. My coursework and my work with the IPLB not only provided substantive knowledge of trademark law, but exposed me to a wide range of contemporary issues in trademark law.
A trademark can be an essential platform for strengthening a company’s goodwill. A trademark entails any symbol, word, or phrase that can be identified with firm’s products and services. These items might be qualified as trademarks when they gain a signifying meaning among the company’s customer base (Maggs and Schechter 4). Nonetheless, the misuse of this proprietary asset can result in lack of legal protection and confusion among customers since it might be difficult to deduce the origin and identity of a particular product. As such, some companies have resorted to unconventional means of protecting their trademarks. This paper will discuss the trademark problems facing the assigned case study of VELCRO with reference to relevant statutory
My aim is to examine certain past cases where a party claimed that their intellectual property was used without consent. Because most things are not black or white, rather a spectrum of grays, patents surely produce positive and negative outcomes. They can potentially block certain individuals’ access to certain essentials who might desperately need them. In economic terms, a deadweight loss exists might exist in economies where patents are implemented by a government. This is a controversial topic, since the firm or individual attempting to defend the patent in question can potentially lose profits due to the copyright infringement. 3D Printing: Cultural Property as Intellectual Property, written by Charles Croning will be one of my essential sources for my paper. His focuses on “how we perceive tangible works of cultural property, and how we resolve disputes over their ownership.” I will investigate the outcome of these cases to a higher degree, as well as, analyze the claims of the opposing
Trademarks are "signs", according to Alan Davidson, which distinguish particular goods and services (268). Davidson's position is that a trademark means a representation of a company’s logo which “is protected under common law and the Trade Marks Act 1995” (268). Lundi suggests this protection is not absolute, and that if trademarks are commonly used, they lose legal protections by becoming "too valuable" (18). In essence, they become public property. There are many such product examples including the use of the word Kleenex for a tissue and Skidoo for a snow-mobile. In the case of Aladdin Industries Inc. v. Canadian Thermos Products Limited. In this case, the court held that the primary issue was distinctiveness. The position of the court was that the word “thermos” was properly registered in 1907. But, as the first action claiming copyright infringement was not heard until 1964, too long a period had passed. The word “thermos” in the last 57 years has passed into common parlance and thus genericized. This early case set the standard and created the assumption that genericization must always be negative. However, once a product or service becomes synonymous with the company itself, it can accrue a significant competitive advantage to the originator. Bernard Gova presents compelling evidence regarding how popular Google has become. In 1998, "about 85% of all searches (in Europe) were performed" using Google (364). Thus, Google may be genericized, but most internet searches are conducted using the Google search engine. This means that Google holds a monopoly on the market and being genericized has, if anything, aided in the popularity of their
One of the most important aspects of any business is its name. Our laws provide for a business to seek protection for its property. Congress established the trademark protections for businesses in the Trademark Act of 1881. It established a trademark law that applied to the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution (Busse, 2011). The trademark is considered one of the founding distinctions a company can own under our intellectual property laws. For consideration in this essay, we will discuss a very interesting court case that took place in the 1960’s. Back in the 1950’s, there were two restaurants legally established each with the name “Burger King.” In this case, two businesses were contending for the right to exclusively use
In France the first compre-hensive trademark system of the world was passed into law in 1857 with the “Manufacture and Goods Marks Act”. In Britain, the 1862 Merchandise Marks Act made it a criminal offence to imitate another’s trademark ‘with the intent to defraud or to enable another to defraud’. In 1875, The Trademarks Registration Act was passed which allowed formal registration of trademarks at the UK Patent office for the first time. Registration was considered to comprise prima facie evidence of ownership of a trademark and registration of marks began on 1st Janu-ary 1876. The 1875 act defined a registrable trademark as ‘a device, or mark, or name of an in-dividual or firm printed in some particular and distinctive manner, or a written signature or copy of a written signature of an individual or firm; or a distinctive label or
5) Gorman, K. (2011, November 6). What’s Red and Blue and Litigated All Over? Louboutin, Tiffany, and the Future of Trademarked Colors. Columbia Business Law Review Whats Red and Blue and Litigated All Over Louboutin Tiffany and the Future of Trademarked Colors Comments. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://cblr.columbia.edu/archives/1186
A lot of individuals usually mistake trademark for copyright. Trademark is used in a brand to identify a name, logo, and slogan from similar competitive products. Another important fact that should be noted is that copyright is different from patent right. The latter is protection of once invention.
For organizations, safeguarding their intellectual property is critical to cultivating and preserving a successful business. Moreover, there are several elements, in which an organization can effectively protect their property, including: brand recognition, competitive advantage, creative works, internet presence and social media (Klemchuk, 2014).