Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School February 6, 2008 Intent to Use.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Trademarks. Trademark A commercial symbol, word, name or other device that identifies and distinguishes products of a particular firm Trademark law entitles.
Advertisements

1 Marks Registration In Jordan Presented by: Samer AL-Tarawneh Director Industrial Property Directorate Ministry of Industry & Trade Amman-Jordan.
Trademark and Unfair Comp.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association COST COMPARISON OF INTER PARTES PROCEEDINGS IN THE USPTO AND INFRINGEMENT ACTION IN.
Paradise Point Resort & Spa San Diego, CA October 19-21, 2011 Patenting Protein Therapeutics: In the Shadow of Uncertainty 4th Protein Discovery and Therapeutics.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School March 19, 2008 False Designation, False Advertising.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School September 21, 2004 Use in Commerce.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 25, 2009 Trademark – Priority.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School March 12, rd-Party Liability, Statutory Defenses.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 2, 2008 Trademark – Priority.
Trademark Priority Intro to IP – Prof Merges
Trademark Priority Intro to IP – Prof Merges
Intellectual Property
Establishing Protection Intro to IP – Prof. Merges
Establishing Protection Intro to IP – Prof. Merges
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School October 5, 2004 Registration.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 4, 2008 Trademark – Priority, Registration.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School October 28, rd-Party Liability, Statutory Defenses.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 30, 2009 Trademark – Infringement.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 16, 2008 What is a Trademark?
Trademarks: Administrative Issues Intro to IP – Prof Merges
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School March 25, rd-Party Liability, Statutory Defenses.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 4, 2007 Trademark – Priority, Registration.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School November 4, 2004 Dilution.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School October 21, 2004 Likelihood of Confusion 2.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 2, 2007 Trademark – Priority.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 30, 2008 Use in Commerce, Priority.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School October 7, 2004 Bars to Registration.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School October 14, 2004 Abandonment.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School September 30, 2004 Intent to Use.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School September 7, 2004 Distinctiveness.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School September 9, 2004 Trade Dress - Part 1.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 23, 2009 Trademark - Intro, Subject Matter.
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School September 28, 2004 Use, Priority.
Trademarks A Product of Creativity in Bloom Elexis Jones 2011.
1 Intellectual Property Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights.
INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Professor Fischer Class 1: Introduction August 20, 2009.
FUNDAMENTALS OF TRADEMARK LAW THE HONORABLE BERNICE B. DONALD U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN SEPT. 18, 2013 LAHORE, PAKISTAN.
Trademark Priority + TM Office Procedures/Incontestability Intro to IP – Prof Merges [Originally scheduled for 3.13 and ]
Chapter 7 Intellectual Property and Cyber Piracy
I DENTIFYING AND P ROTECTING I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY Tyson Benson
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS CASE WHAT IT MEANS WHAT IT DOESN’T MEAN George William Lewis.
1 Intellectual Property Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights.
By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts
TRADEMARKS PROF. JANICKE JULY F2008Trademarks2 TO BE A “MARK”: HAS TO SERVE AS A BRAND MEANING: HAS TO DISTINGUISH ONE’S GOODS OR SERVICES FROM.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
Trademarks I Introduction to Trademarks Class Notes: March 26, 2003 Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
1 Trademarks 101 and emerging trends IM 350 fall 2015 day 10 Sept. 29, 2015.
Chapter 7 Intellectual Property and Piracy
Trademark May Pay the USPTO’s ATTORNEY FEES??? Ex parte appeal to D. Ct. for De Novo Review –must name the Director of the PTO as a defendant; and.
Law 227: Trademarks & Unfair Competition U.S. Prosecution, Part II June 25, 2009 Jefferson Scher.
Trademark Prevent Misappropriation of Goodwill Prevent Consumer Deception about Source.
1 Trademark Infringement and Dilution Steve Baron March 6, 2003.
Trademarks II Establishment of Trademark Rights Class 20 Notes Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 2004 Professor Wagner.
1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION R.S. JULANIYA DIRECTOR.
1 Trademarks 101 Steve Baron March 4, What is a trademark or service mark?  Kodak  Exxon  Coca  Coca Cola  Mc  Mc Donald’s  Starbucks 
Trademark Law1  Oct. 9, 2006  Week 6 Finish Chapter 4 – Registration Start Chapter 5 - Loss of Trademark Rights  Read Pgs , , ;
COPYRIGHT LAW : FALL 2006 PROFESSOR FISCHER THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA October 4, 2006.
Trademark Law1  Sept. 25, 2006  Week 5 Finish Chapter 3 Start Chapter 4 (Registration of Trademarks  Reading: Pgs , suppl. pgs
Fall Trademark Law1  Sept. 11, 2006  Week 3  Chapter 3 - Acquisition of Trademark Rights Reading:  Pgs
In re Tam: Simon Tam and “The Slants”. In re Tam Simon Tam files for “THE SLANTS” for “entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band”
Spirits Branding in 2016 and Beyond
International Trademark Association U.S. Roundtable Program
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CYBER PIRACY
Trademarks Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman
Chapter 7 Intellectual Property and Cyber Piracy
TRADEMARKS PROF. JANICKE JULY 2007.
Jonathan D’Silva MMI Intellectual Property 900 State Street, Suite 301
Presentation transcript:

Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School February 6, 2008 Intent to Use

Bases for Registration Lanham Act §1 (15 U.S.C. 1051): –(a) (1) The owner of a trademark used in commerce may request registration... –(b) (1) A person who has a bona fide intention … to use a trademark in commerce may apply to register the trademark … (3) … no mark shall be registered until the applicant has met the requirements for subsection[] … (d) of this section.

Intent to Use Lanham Act §1 (15 U.S.C. 1051): –(d) (1) Within six months after the date on which the notice of allowance … is issued …, the applicant shall file … a verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce …

Intent to Use Procedure ITU Application Filed Initial PTO Review PTO Publishes Notice of Allowance 30-Day Period for Opposition Statement of Use Filed 6-Month Period (Extendable) Second PTO Review Trademark Registered Actual Use in Commerce

Lanham Act Lanham Act §7(c) (15 U.S.C. 1057(c)): –Contingent on the registration of a mark …, the filing of the application … shall constitute constructive use of the mark, conferring a right of priority, nationwide in effect

WarnerVision v. Empire Sep. 23, 1994: TLV Files ITU App. For REAL WHEELS EmpireWarnerVision Actual Use of REAL WHEELS Notice of Allowance Statement of Use Filed 6-Month Period (Extendable) Second PTO Review Trademark Registered Actual Use in Commerce Jan. 3, 1995: Files Use App. For REAL WHEELS Sues to Enjoin Empire from Using Term

Eastman Kodak v. B&H Oct. 12, 1990: Files ITU App. For 6200, 6800, 8100 Kodak Opposes: Descriptive B&HKodak Notice of Allowance Statement of Use Filed 6-Month Period (Extendable) Second PTO Review Trademark Registered Actual Use in Commerce Initial PTO Review PTO Publishes

Advantages of Registration Nationwide constructive use - priority Nationwide constructive notice Possibility of achieving incontestability Presumption of validity at trial Right to sue in federal court Availability of extra remedies (e.g. attorney fees, treble damages, border exclusion …)

Registration Process Clearing the trademark Start use or have bona fide intent to use File application Examination by PTO Publication in Official Gazette Registration –Or if intent to use, notice of allowance and later filing of statement of use; then registration

Additional Issues Principal v. Supplemental Register Foreign registrations Trademark registration maintenance

Bars to Registration Lanham Act §2: –(a) Immoral, scandalous, deceptive; disparages –(b) Flag, coat of arms, insignia of U.S., state, etc. –(c) Name, portrait, signature of living individual –(d) Likely to cause confusion with other mark –(e) Consists of mark that is: (1) merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive (2) primarily geographically descriptive (3) primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive (4) primarily a surname (5) functional

Bars - Immoral, Scandalous Lanham Act §2: –Shall register mark unless it: “(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter, or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute”

In re Bad Frog Brewery

Scandalous or Immoral? Yes –MADDONA (wine) –MESSIAS (wine) –BUBBY TRAP (bras) –BULLSHIT (briefcase) –Picture of defecating dog (t-shirts) No –BUDDA (beachwear) –BIG PECKER (t-shirt) –WEEK-END SEX (magazine) –BLACK TAIL (adult magazine)

Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Other Examples

Bars to Registration Lanham Act §2: –(a) Immoral, scandalous, deceptive; disparages –(b) Flag, coat of arms, insignia of U.S., state, etc. –(c) Name, portrait, signature of living individual –(d) Likely to cause confusion with other mark –(e) Consists of mark that is: (1) merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive (2) primarily geographically descriptive (3) primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive (4) primarily a surname (5) functional

Bars - Flags, Individuals Lanham Act §2: –Shall register mark unless it: “(b) Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation … “(c) Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent …”

Bars - Likely to Cause Confusion Lanham Act §2: –Shall register mark unless it: “(d) consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered … or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely … to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”

Bars to Registration Lanham Act §2: –(a) Immoral, scandalous, deceptive; disparages –(b) Flag, coat of arms, insignia of U.S., state, etc. –(c) Name, portrait, signature of living individual –(d) Likely to cause confusion with other mark –(e) Consists of mark that is: (1) merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive (2) primarily geographically descriptive (3) primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive (4) primarily a surname (5) functional

Bars to Registration Lanham Act §2: –(f) Except as expressly excluded in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)(3), and (e)(5) of this section, nothing herein shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce. The Director may accept as prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive … upon proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made ….

Lanham Act §2(e) Descriptive –“ORGANIC” for organically grown oranges Deceptive –“ORGANIC” for non-organic oranges Deceptively misdescriptive –“JOE’S FAVORITE” for oranges that aren’t Joe’s favorite Nondeceptively misdescriptive (arbitrary) –“ATOMIC” for oranges Geographically descriptive –“FLORIDA” for Florida oranges Geographically deceptive –“FLORIDA” for Georgia oranges Geographically deceptively misdescriptive –“FLORIDA” for auto parts from New Jersey Geographically nondeceptively misdescriptive (arbitrary) –“ANTARCTIC” for Georgia oranges

Examples, Redux Geographic Descriptive Florida (Florida Oranges) Misdescriptive Nondeceptively Antarctic (Florida Oranges) Deceptively Florida (Georgia Oranges) (NJ Auto Parts) §2(e)(2) - Can register if Secondary Meaning §2(e)(3) - Cannot register Arbitrary or suggestive - Can register

Examples ARIZONA (ice tea, not made in Arizona) NANTUCKET (fruit drinks made in Nantucket) CORNING (glassware products made in Corning, NY) HERSHEY (chocolate made in Hershey, PA and elsewhere) PARK AVENUE (luxury car, not made on Park Avenue) SWISS ARMY KNIFE (pocket knife, not made in Switz.)

Bars to Registration Lanham Act §2: –(a) Immoral, scandalous, deceptive; disparages –(b) Flag, coat of arms, insignia of U.S., state, etc. –(c) Name, portrait, signature of living individual –(d) Likely to cause confusion with other mark –(e) Consists of mark that is: (1) merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive (2) primarily geographically descriptive (3) primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive (4) primarily a surname (5) functional

Administrative Details Next Assignment –V.A – Genericity –V.B – Abandonment