Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > ACPA > Notices > VW Bugs A Reseller Printer-friendly version

VW Bugs A Reseller

January 3, 2005

 

Sender Information:
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Sent by: [private]
Howard, Phillips & Andersen
560 East 200 Sout
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
Bug Auto
Salinas, CA, 93906, USA


Sent via: email and postal
Re: BUGAUTO.COM - Infringement of Volkswagen Intellectual Property Rights

Dear Mr. Cain:

This law firm represents Volkswagen of America, Inc. (?VWoA?) on intellectual property enforcement matters. Volkswagen of America is a subsidiary of, and the U.S. importer of cars manufactured by, Volkswagen AG and Audi AG and, as such, VWoA is charged with protecting the intellectual property associated with those cars. VWoA takes policing and enforcement of its trademark rights very seriously.

It has recently come to VWoA?s attention that you are violating VWoA?s intellectual property rights in several ways. First, United States Federal law and international law prohibits the unauthorized duplication and sale of copyrighted material. United States Federal law provides for civil penalties of up to $150,000.00 per infringement, criminal penalties, injunctive relief, and substantial monetary damages, including costs and attorney?s fees, in cases of copyright infringement. See 17 U.S.C. ??501, 504. Further, in duplicating and selling copies of Volkswagen?s copyrighted Electronic Parts Catalog, you are engaged in counterfeiting and are violating federal United States and international trademark laws. A copy of your website offering the Electronic Parts Catalog for sale is attached hereto for your reference.

Second, BUG?, VOLKSWAGEN? and VW? are all duly registered trademark in the United States, and in many other countries throughout the world. Use of these trademarks, or any confusingly similar variations thereof, without the express, written consent of VWoA, violates state and federal law, is misleading to the public, and constitutes a misappropriation of the goodwill and reputation developed by VWoA.

You should be aware that Congress has enacted the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (?ACPA?) that provides for statutory damage awards of up to $100,000.00 per domain name against cyberpirates who misappropriate famous trademarks in Internet domain names. You should also be aware that VWoA takes cyberpiracy very seriously and has in the past obtained judgments against those who have used its trademarks in Internet domain names without authorization. See, e.g., Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 238 F.3d 264 (4 th Cir. 2001) (affirming order requiring Virtual Works to surrender vw.net to VWoA and finding that Virtual Work?s registration of vw.net infringed and diluted VWoA?s VW? mark).

Third, you are using VWoA?s trademarks and trade dress on your website. The image or appearance of a product is referred to as its ?trade dress.? The distinctive shapes or images of Volkswagen? vehicles are VWoA?s trade dress and are protected by trademark law just as brand names and design trademarks or logos are protected. The shape or image of Volkswagen? or Audi? automobiles cannot be copied or used in any form (including photographs, drawings, or caricatures) without VWoA?s authorization. Any unauthorized use of VWoA?s trade dress violates state and federal law, is misleading to the public, and constitutes a misappropriation of the goodwill and reputation developed by VWoA.

Numerous courts have recognized that the right to capitalize on the good will associated with VWoA?s products belongs exclusively to VWoA. See, e.g., Volkswagenwerk, AG v. Smith, 471 F. Supp. 385 (D.N.M. 1979) (holding defendant service shop?s reproduction of Volkswagen silhouette on business advertisements infringes Volkswagen?s trade dress and constitutes unfair competition); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rickard, 492 F.2d 474 (5 th Cir. 1974) (affirming injunction barring, among other things, defendant service shop?s use of ?any silhouette, picture, caricature, or reproduction of the shape or appearance of the Volkswagen sedan?). Indeed, the law is well settled that manufacturers have protectable trade dress rights in the distinctive shapes of their automobiles. In Liquid Glass Enterprises, Inc., v. Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, 8 F.Supp.2d 398 (D.N.J. 1998), Judge Barry preliminarily enjoined Liquid Glass from using photographs of a Porsche 911 in its advertising, explaining that such use was prohibited because ?Liquid Glass wanted to cash in on the good will that Porsche has worked hard to create and maintain by aligning itself with Porsche.? Judge Barry further found that the defendant?s use of pictures of Porsche automobiles in its advertising diluted Porsche?s trade dress because such use ?is likely to slowly whittle away the distinctiveness of Porsche?s marks, demeaning the Porsche cachet and blurring the value of its famous and strong marks.? Id. at 405.

Liquid Glass is consistent with many other cases holding that a business cannot use photos or drawings of a distinctive automobile to promote its goods without the manufacturer?s authorization. See Ferrari S.P.A. Esercizio v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 1240 (6th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 3028 (1992) (holding ?exterior design and shape of the Ferrari vehicles? protectable trade dress); Chrysler Corp. v. Silva, 118 F.3d 56, 58-59 (1st Cir. 1997) (holding image of Dodge Viper protectable trade dress).

Finally, you may not conduct business under the name ?Bug Auto? or under any other name that incorporates VWoA?s trademarks. The law is well settled that independent facilities cannot use a manufacturer?s trademarks, or even variations of such trademarks, in business names, on signage, in telephone listings, on stationery, in answering the telephone, or otherwise, and judges typically award significant damage awards against repair shops that do so. See Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2d Cir. 1999) (enjoining motorcycle repairer from using manufacturer?s ?bar-and-shield? logo in signage and in advertisements); Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Uptown Motors, 1995 WL 605605 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (enjoining use of VW and Audi trademarks in yellow pages ads); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rickard, 492 F.2d 474 (5 th Cir. 1974) (affirming injunction against use of VW trademarks in advertisements and signage); Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Iron Eagle of Central Florida, Inc., 973 F. Supp. 1421 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (enjoining use of ?winged logo? in business name, advertisements, signage, and otherwise).

By this letter, VWoA demands that you agree to cease and desist immediately from (1) the unauthorized sale of copyrighted material, (2) the use of VWoA?s BUG? trademark in the Internet domain name bugauto.com, (3) the use of other VWoA trademarks and trade dress on your website, and (4) the use of the business name ?Bug Auto.? Accordingly, by no later than January 17, 2005, please sign and return a copy of the below-attached agreement, memorializing your commitment to cease and desist from your unlawful activity. If I have not received a signed copy of the agreement from you by the close of business on that date, I will infer that you are unwilling to resolve this matter voluntarily and will advise VWoA to file suit against you and seek damages of $100,000.00 under the ACPA, monetary damages for trademark infringement, an injunction, and recovery of its attorneys? fees and other costs.

You may be infringing VWoA?s intellectual property rights in other ways, and VWoA reserves the right to bring to your attention other matters that VWoA believes infringe its copyrights, trademarks, and trade dress rights, or constitute false advertisement. This letter is without prejudice to all rights of VWoA, including past or future royalties, past or future damages, attorney?s fees, and to bring enforcement actions for all past or future violations of VWoA?s rights.

Should you have any questions concerning VWoA?s position in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,
[private]

AGREEMENT
By execution of this Agreement, the undersigned agrees immediately to cease and desist from all unauthorized uses of Volkswagen and Audi intellectual property, including Volkswagen and Audi copyrighted material and trademarks, in its products, services, advertisements, promotional literature, promotional telecasts, broadcasts, and signage, on the Internet, or otherwise, in connection with the advertisement or sale of any product, part, good, or service.

Specifically, by way of illustration and without limiting the general agreement expressed above, the undersigned agrees that he will

(1) immediately cease the unauthorized manufacture, advertisement, and sale of any product displaying or incorporating copyrighted material owned by Volkswagen or Audi;
(2) provide the following information by no later than January 17, 2005: a) The number of products set forth by item sold or distributed displaying or incorporating copyrighted material owned by Volkswagen or Audi or using or bearing any Volkswagen or Audi trademark; b) The gross revenue received from the sale of such products set forth by item; c) The time period during which such products have been offered or sold; d) The names and addresses of all non-retail purchasers of such products and the number of each product listed by item purchased by each such purchaser; and e) The names and addresses of any suppliers of the products and which product each supplier supplies;
(3) by no later than January 17, 2005, pay Volkswagen by cashier's check damages equal to the gross revenues received from the sales of any products displaying or incorporating copyrighted material owned by Volkswagen or Audi or any products using or bearing any Volkswagen or Audi trademark for the past five years (i.e., from January 1, 1998, through the present);
(4) by no later than January 17, 2005 transfer to VWoA the registration for the domain name bugauto.com, and agrees to sign all forms necessary, to provide other necessary information and documentation, and to send such electronic mail messages as may be necessary to accomplish the transfer of the domain name;
(5) immediately cease from the unauthorized use of VWoA?s trademarks and trade dress;
(6) immediately turn over to Volkswagen for destruction all unauthorized products, packaging, labels, and products displaying or incorporating copyrighted material owned by Volkswagen or Audi or using or bearing any Volkswagen or Audi trademark;
(7) by no later than January 17, 2005, submit to all government offices with which the name ?Bug Auto,? or any other name that uses VWoA?s trademarks or variations of VWoA?s trademarks, has been registered, all forms necessary to immediately discontinue any such registration;
(8) by no later than January 17, 2005, deliver by certified mail to any telephone or Internet directory in which it currently has a listing or advertisement under the name ?Bug Auto,? or any other name that uses VWoA?s trademarks or variations of VWoA?s trademarks, a letter instructing that such listing or advertisement be canceled and not be renewed under any such name;
(9) furnish this office with a copy of any letters or forms described in the preceding two sections; and
(10) immediately turn over to counsel for VWoA for destruction all signs, banners, business cards, stationery, brochures, advertisements, and other documents displaying the name ?Bug Auto,? or any of VWoA?s trademarks or variations of such trademarks.

The undersigned further agrees and acknowledges that any violation or breach of this Agreement will cause irreparable harm to Volkswagen, and that Volkswagen will be entitled to both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the undersigned for any violation of this Agreement, as well as any other remedy allowed by law. The undersigned further agrees that if he breaches this Agreement, he will pay all costs incurred by Volkswagen in enforcing this Agreement, including reasonable attorney?s fees, whether incurred with or without suit or before or after judgment.

AGREED TO:
[Name]
____________________________________
Date: _______________________________

 
FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What is "intellectual property"?

Answer: Intellectual property refers to the rights one has in the product of one's intellect. This includes copyright (rights in creative expression)and patents (rights in inventions, discoveries, methods, compositions of matter, etc.) which are granted by article I, section 8 clause 8 of the US Constitution which gives Congress the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Related rights include trademark (rights in the names one uses to identify one's goods and services), trade secret (confidential business practices), unfair trade practice, passing off, trade libel, false advertising, misappropriation. Laws protecting most of these rights exist at both the state and federal level. "Proprietary rights" is just a general term meaning "one's own rights."


[back to notice text]


Question: What does it mean to take all reasonable steps to protect a trademark?

Answer: If a trademark owner fails to police his or her mark, the owner may be deemed to have abandoned the mark or acquiesced in its misuse. A trademark is only protected while it serves to identify the source of goods or services.

If a trademark owner believes someone is infringing his or her trademark, the first thing the owner is likely to do is to write a "cease-and-desist" letter which asks the accused infringer to stop using the trademark. If the accused infringer refuses to comply, the owner may file a lawsuit in Federal or state court. The court may grant the plaintiff a preliminary injunction on use of the mark -- tell the infringer to stop using the trademark pending trial.

If the owner successfully proves trademark infringement in court, the court has the power to: order a permanent injunction; order monetary payment for profit the plaintiff can prove it would have made but for defendant's use of the mark; possibly increase this payment; possibly award a monetary payment of profits the defendant made while using the mark; and possibly order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees in egregious cases of infringement.

Of course, the determination of infringement is actually one that will be made by the court, so a trademark owner is simply using a best guess about whether or not infringement actually has occurred. That best guess may be a good one, based on experience and expertise, or it may be a bad one that doesn't reflect any of the legitimate defenses that might exist. The law doesn't require the mark owner to sue everyone; it just requires the owner to keep his mark distinctive.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is a trademark and why does it get special protection?

Answer: A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name.

Consumers reap the benefit when trademarks are protected. By preventing anyone but the actual mark owner from labeling goods with the mark, it helps prevent consumers getting cheated by shoddy knock-off imitators. It encourages mark owners to maintain quality goods so that customers will reward them by looking for their label as an indication of excellence. Consumers as well as mark owners benefit from trademark laws.

Trademark owners spend a lot of time, money, and effort to protect the distinctiveness of their trademark. Once trademarks have become diluted to the point where the general public no longer recognizes them as distinctly applying to a particular manufacturer, they lose their value to the trademark owner because they no longer attract customers to his particular goods. For example, ?aspirin? used to be the trademark of one particular manufacturer of synthesized acetylsalicylic acid, but is now used to generically describe that product regardless of who produces it. Trademarks owners must be vigilant to make sure that their trademarks rights are not being infringed and that their trademarks are not becoming diluted or generic.

The birth of the Internet and the use of character strings (domain names) to represent Internet addresses has presented trademark owners with a whole new set of problems. It is often too expensive to register every variation of a trademark in every top level domain. Therefore, trademark owners must make sure that the people who register domain names that are either the same as or confusingly similar to a trademark are not using the domain name in a way that infringes on the trademark. One way to ensure that the trademark owner will not lose its rights in the mark is to file a UDRP complaint so that the Panel can decide whether the domain was registered in order to take unfair advantage of the mark owner. The Panel may decide that the trademark owner was wrong and had nothing to worry about, but unless the trademark owner is vigilant and files the complaint, it may never know for sure whether its rights were being abused.


[back to notice text]


Question: Where can I find the text of the U.S. Copyright Act?

Answer: The federal Copyright Act may be found at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/.


[back to notice text]


Question: What rights are protected by copyright law?

Answer: The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative work by granting a temporary monopoly in an author's original creations. This monopoly takes the form of six rights in areas where the author retains exclusive control. These rights are:

(1) the right of reproduction (i.e., copying),
(2) the right to create derivative works,
(3) the right to distribution,
(4) the right to performance,
(5) the right to display, and
(6) the digital transmission performance right.

The law of copyright protects the first two rights in both private and public contexts, whereas an author can only restrict the last four rights in the public sphere. Claims of infringement must show that the defendant exercised one of these rights. For example, if I create unauthorized videotape copies of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and distribute them to strangers on the street, then I have infringed both the copyright holder's rights of reproduction and distribution. If I merely re-enact The Wrath of Khan for my family in my home, then I have not infringed on the copyright. Names, ideas and facts are not protected by copyright.

Trademark law, in contrast, is designed to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of goods (as well as to protect the trademark owner's market). To this end, the law gives the owner of a registered trademark the right to use the mark in commerce without confusion. If someone introduces a trademark into the market that is likely to cause confusion, then the newer mark infringes on the older one. The laws of trademark infringement and dilution protect against this likelihood of confusion. Trademark protects names, images and short phrases.

Infringement protects against confusion about the origin of goods. The plaintiff in an infringement suit must show that defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause such a confusion. For instance, if I were an unscrupulous manufacturer, I might attempt to capitalize on the fame of Star Trek by creating a line of 'Spock Activewear.' If consumers could reasonably believe that my activewear was produced or endorsed by the owners of the Spock trademark, then I would be liable for infringement.

The law of trademark dilution protects against confusion concerning the character of a registered trademark. Suppose I created a semi-automatic assault rifle and marketed it as 'The Lt. Uhura 5000.' Even if consumers could not reasonably believe that the Star Trek trademark holders produced this firearm, the trademark holders could claim that my use of their mark harmed the family-oriented character of their mark. I would be liable for dilution.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is a "counterfeit" mark?

Answer: The Lanham Act defines a counterfeit mark as a false mark which is identical to or substantially indistinguishable from a registered mark.


[back to notice text]


Question: Where can I find federal trademark law?

Answer: To be protected by federal trademark law, the marked goods and services must be used in interstate commerce. Federal trademark law is known as the Lanham Act. It protects marks that are registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office as well as those that are in use but never registered.

Court opinions and United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) regulations also interpret trademark rights and remedies. See the links to court sites provided by the Legal Information Insitute.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is the bare minimum of trademark law that I have to understand to decipher this C&D?

Answer: Your opponent should say that your mark is causing consumer confusion or is likely to cause consumer confusion. Or it should mention it's famousness and complain of dilution or tarnishment. (If the C&D does not say this, then no trademark claim may actually exist, and you can rest assured that your opponent is engaging in scare tactics or has hired a highly incompetent attorney). A mark protects more than identical copying, it extends to anything that is confusingly similar, even if it isn't exactly the same.

Functioning in a quasi-magical talisman-like capacity, trademarks designate the source or quality of goods or services. For this reason, the law protects against confusion in the market place by ensuring that marks on the same or similar products or services are sufficiently different. The law also protects famous marks against dilution of value and tarnishment of the reputation of the goods or services on which it appears or the source of those products, regardless of any confusion.

You can roughly assess the validity of your opponent?s claim of confusion by classifying the marks involved. A trademark can fall into one of 5 categories. It can be: (1) fanciful; (2) arbitrary; (3) suggestive; (4) descriptive; or (5) generic. Not all of these varieties of marks are entitled to the same level, or indeed any level, of trademark protection.

A fanciful mark is a mark someone made up; examples include KODAK or H?AGEN-DAZS. An arbitrary mark is a known term applied to a completely unrelated product or service; for instance, AMAZON.com for an online book-store cum one-stop shopping site or APPLE for computers. Fanciful and arbitrary marks are considered strong marks and garner substantial trademark protection.

A suggestive mark is one that hints at the product, but which requires an act of imagination to make the connection: COPPERTONE for sun tan lotion or PENGUIN for coolers or refrigerators are examples. Suggestive marks are also strong marks and receive protection.

A descriptive mark, predictably, describes the product: HOLIDAY INN describes a vacation hotel and FISH-FRI describes batter for frying fish. Descriptive marks do not receive any trademark protection unless their user has used them in commerce and has built up secondary meaning. "Secondary meaning" occurs when consumers identify the goods or services on which the descriptive term appears with a single source. In other words, if consumers know that HOLIDAY INN hotels are all affiliated with a single source, then the mark has secondary meaning and receives trademark protection.

Finally, generic marks simply designate the variety of goods involved: for example, "cola" used on soft drinks and "perfume" on perfume are both generic terms. Generic marks never receive any trademark protection; they are free for everybody to use. (Keep in mind, though, that "Cola" on a nightclub is arbitrary, and therefore receives protection).

If your opponent is complaining that you have used the word "bakery" for a bake shop or "car" for a car repair shop, then you can safely guess that the c & d is baseless. On the other hand, if your opponent is concerned about the fact that both of you use of the term "Sweet Pickles" on alpaca sweaters, then the c & d may have some merit.

There are a few more wrinkles as well. Some marks are word marks (text only) and others are design marks (images which may or may not include text). Design marks do not provide independent protectin for the text incorporated in the design. So if the mark is only a design mark, it doesn't prevent others from using the text so long as they don't copy the design elements.


[back to notice text]


Question: Where can I find federal trademark registrations?

Answer: The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) keeps the US federal registry of trademarks. It has an online search capability, TESS, which contains more than 3 million pending, registered and dead federal trademarks. This database may not be complete. One should check the News page to see how current the information actually is.

Be aware: not all trademarks are contained in the US federal register. There are state trademarks, unregistered (common law marks) and foreign marks as well. A mark does not have to be registered to be valid.


[back to notice text]


Question: Where can I find state trademark law?

Answer: Each state has its own laws governing use of trademarks within its borders. To locate the trademark laws of the 50 states, use the Legal Information Institute links. Both legislation and court opinions create trademark rights and remedies.

If marks are used in interstate commerce, then federal law will also apply.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is "goodwill"?

Answer: Goodwill is a business or trademark owner's image, relationship with customers and suppliers, good reputation, and expectation of repeat patronage. It is the value a trademark owner builds in a brand.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)?

Answer: The ACPA [codified as 15 USC 1125(d)] is aimed at people who register a domain name with the intention of taking financial advantage of another's trademark. For instance, if BURGER KING did not have a web site, and you registered www.BURGERKING.com with the intent of selling the site to BURGER KING for a royal ransom, you could be liable under ACPA.

ACPA applies to people who:
(1) have a bad faith intent to profit from a domain name; and
(2) register, use or traffic in a domain name;
(3) that is identical, confusingly similar, or dilutive of certain trademarks. The trademark does not have to be registered.

ACPA provides that cyberpirates can be fined between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain name for which they are found liable, as well as being forced to transfer the domain name.

Somewhat more broadly, the Act is meant to reduce consumers' confusion about the source and sponsorship of Internet web pages. The idea is to provide customers with a measure of reliability, so that when they visit www.burgerking.com, they will be able to find actual Burger King products, not something entirely different. It also protects mark owners from loss of customer goodwill that might occur if others used the trademark to market disreputable goods or services.

See the module on ACPA to find out more about bad faith and legitimate defenses.


[back to notice text]


Question: What civil and criminal liabilities may be imposed for trademark infringement?

Answer: Under federal law (Lanham Act Section 32), an infringer shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for certain remedies provided in the Act.

One such remedy is an injunction, where a court orders a person who was found to violate the Act to stop its infringing activities.

A trademark owner/registrant may also be able to obtain lost profits or damages against a defendant in a civil action only if the acts were committed with knowledge that such imitation was intended to be used to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive. The trademark owner can recover (1) the domain holder's profits from use of the mark, (2) the trademark owner's damages resulting from harm to the value of mark, and (3) court costs as "actual damages." In determining the award to be paid, the court can choose to award up to three times the amount of actual damages. Instead of having to prove the amount of "actual" damages suffered as above, the mark owner can instead request payment of "statutory damages" from $1000 and $100,000 per domain name.

Attorney fees may be awarded in exceptional circumstances, such as when there was a willful and malicious violation.

The court can order the cancellation or transfer of a domain registration.

In the case of a willful violation of Lanham Act section 43, a court may order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements in the possession of a defendant bearing the registered trademark shall be delivered up and destroyed.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is a famous mark?

Answer: A famous mark is a mark that has become so well known, that it has become almost universally recognized. An example of such a mark would be "McDonald's" or "Coca-Cola." Famous marks become important where an owner of a trademark is claiming trademark dilution against a defendant. The Federal Anti-Dilution Act of 1996 provides that an owner of a famous mark is entitled to an injunction where a defendant's use of the mark causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the owner's famous mark. In determining whether a mark is famous, a court will consider a list of eight factors, found in the 1996 Federal Anti-Dilution Act.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the limits on dilution?

Answer: The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA, 15 U.S.C. 1125) prohibits the commercial use of a famous mark if such use causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark.

A mark may be diluted either by "tarnishment" or "blurring." Tarnishment occurs when someone uses a mark on inferior or unwholesome goods or services. For example a court found that a sexually explicit web site using the domain name "candyland.com" diluted by tarnishment the famous trademark "CANDY LAND" owned by Hasbro, Inc. for its board games.

Blurring occurs when a famous mark or a mark similar to it is used without permission on other goods and services. The unique and distinctive character of the famous mark to identify one source is weakened by the additional use even though it may not cause confusion to the consumer.

The following uses of a famous mark are specifically permitted under the Act:

1) Fair use in comparative advertising to identify the goods or services of the owner of the mark.
2) Noncommercial uses of a mark.
3) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

In addition, the courts have differed as to what constitutes a "famous" mark under the FTDA. In some cases the courts have said that the famousness requirement limits the Act to a very small number of very widely known marks. Other courts, however, have accepted lesser-known marks as PANAVISION, WAWA and EBONY as being famous and yet others have said that merely being famous in one's product line is sufficient.

Many states also have antidilution laws protecting mark owners.


[back to notice text]


Question: I do not know what these cases or statutes cited in the C&D mean.

Answer: If your opponent has cited cases and statutes in the C&D, do not freak out. The fact that your opponent can include some legal authority in the C&D does not mean that the law is on its side. If you can, go look up the cases and statutes to see what they say. You can go to the nearest law school's law library for help, or you can try a free legal resource web site like Findlaw. Many of them are accessible on the Internet by keyword search using the full case name or it's citation (the numbers and abbreviations that follow the names of the parties).

If your opponent is relying on federal law, it will probably cite one or more of the following sections of the Lanham Act:
(1) section 32 (also known as section 1114);
(2) section 43(a) [a/k/a section 1125(a)]; or
(3) section 43(c) [a/k/a section 1125(c)]. (The smaller numbers indicate how the statutory sections were numbered when the law was a bill in Congress; the larger numbers indicate how the statutory sections were re-numbered when the law was codified in the U.S. Code. Under either numbering system, the laws say the same thing). An additional statute, the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) [a/k/a section 1125(d) relates specifically to domain names.

Section 32 (codified as 15 U.S.C. 1114) is the basic statute governing trademark infringement of registered marks. If you use a mark in commerce that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark, you may be civilly liable under section 32. This section describes how to determine infringement, what the remedies are, and what defenses are available.

Section 43(a) [codified as 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)] is the "false designation of origin" statute. If you use a mark in commerce that is likely to cause confusion or deception as to affiliation, association, origin, or sponsorship with another trademark, you may be civilly liable under section 43(a). Section 43(a) does not require that any of the marks be registered.

Section 43(c)[codified as 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)] is the "anti-dilution" provision. This section allows the owner of a famous trademark to prevent use of the mark by junior users whose use ?dilutes? the distinctive quality of the famous trademark. In other words, if someone tries to sell "KODAK pianos," KODAK could stop the person -- even if consumers were not confused -- because KODAK is a famous mark, and its use on products other than film and film-printing accessories (or other products on which Eastman Kodak places the mark) dilutes its uniqueness.

The ACPA [codified as 15 USC 1125(d) prohibits "cybersquatting" and lists the elements and defenses to a civil claim against a domain name holder.

If you identify the statutory provisions on which your opponent relies, you can begin to get a feel for whether the C&D has merit. For instance, if your opponent relies on section 32, but does not disclose a registration number, your first question is: does your opponent have a registered mark? If not, it has no claim under section 32.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is trademark infringement?

Answer: Although different courts have different tests, the central concept is confusion in the marketplace. The law protects against consumer confusion by ensuring that the marks on the same or similar products or services are sufficiently different. A plaintiff in a trademark infringement case generally must prove 1) it possesses a valid mark; 2) that the defendant used the mark; 3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce, "in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising "of goods and services; and 4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is trademark dilution?

Answer: A type of infringement of a famous trademark in which the defendant's use, while not causing a likelihood of confusion, tarnishes the image or blurs the distintiveness of the plaintiff's mark. For example, if someone tries to sell "KODAK" pianos, KODAK could stop the person--even if consumers were not confused--because "KODAK" is a famous mark, and its use on products other than film and film-printing accessories (or other products on which Eastman Kodak places the mark) dilutes its uniqueness.

Many states have anti-dilution laws. The federal government only recently enacted anti-dilution legislation; see the Federal Trademark Dilution Act at 15 USC 1125(c).


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the limits of trademark rights?

Answer: There are many limits, including:

  • Fair Use
    There are two situations where the doctrine of fair use prevents infringement:
    1. The term is a way to describe another good or service, using its descriptive term and not its secondary meaning. The idea behind this fair use is that a trademark holder does not have the exclusive right to use a word that is merely descriptive, since this decreases the words available to describe. If the term is not used to label any particular goods or services at all, but is perhaps used in a literary fashion as part of a narrative, then this is a non-commercial use even if the narrative is commercially sold.
    2. Nominative fair use
      This is when a potential infringer (or defendant) uses the registered trademark to identify the registrant?s product or service in conjunction with his or her own. To invoke this defense, the defendant must prove the following elements:
      • his/her product or service cannot be readily identified without pointing to the registrant?s mark
      • he/she only uses as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the goods or services
      • he/she does nothing with the mark to suggest that the registrant has given his approval to the defendant
  • Parody Use
    Parodies of trademarked products have traditionally been permitted in print and other media publications. A parody must convey two simultaneous -- and contradictory -- messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.
  • Non-commercial Use
    If no income is solicited or earned by using someone else's mark, this use is not normally infringement. Trademark rights protect consumers from purchasing inferior goods because of false labeling. If no goods or services are being offered, or the goods would not be confused with those of the mark owner, or if the term is being used in a literary sense, but not to label or otherwise identify the origin of other goods or services, then the term is not being used commercially.
  • Product Comparison and News Reporting
    Even in a commercial use, you can refer to someone else?s goods by their trademarked name when comparing them to other products. News reporting is also exempt.
  • Geographic Limitations
    A trademark is protected only within the geographic area where the mark is used and its reputation is established. For federally registered marks, protection is nationwide. For other marks, geographical use must be considered. For example, if John Doe owns the mark Timothy?s Bakery in Boston, there is not likely to be any infringement if Jane Roe uses Timothy?s Bakery to describe a bakery in Los Angeles. They don't sell to the same customers, so those customers aren't confused.
  • Non-competing or Non-confusing Use
    Trademark rights only protect the particular type of goods and services that the mark owner is selling under the trademark. Some rights to expansion into related product lines have been recognized, but generally, if you are selling goods or services that do not remotely compete with those of the mark owner, this is generally strong evidence that consumers would not be confused and that no infringement exists. This defense may not exist if the mark is a famous one, however. In dilution cases, confusion is not the standard, so use on any type of good or service might cause infringement by dilution of a famous mark.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is this laundry list of things the C&D says will happen if I don't obey?

Answer: Your opponent may describe a parade of horribles to demonstrate with exquisite detail what it will do to you unless you capitulate. This list generally includes, but is not limited to:
(1) ceasing use of the allegedly infringing mark or surrendering the domain name;
(2) rendering an accounting;
(3) posting corrective advertising;
(4) obtaining an injunction;
(5) recovering costs and fees.

Though these things sound awful, they are not medieval tortures (although that may be a function of the fact that Torquemada never thought of them).

Ceasing use of the mark is self-explanatory: your opponent wants you to stop using the mark. Your opponent might also ask you to surrender your domain name if they believe the domain name causes (or is likely to cause) confusion with their trademark. For example, under ICANN rules (the UDRP), you may have to surrender your domain name if the following three conditions are satisfied:
(1) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your opponent?s;
(2) you have no legitimate right or interest in the name (in other words, you are not using the name to conduct a bona fide business or for non-commercial fair use purposes); and
(3) your name is registered and used in bad faith.

An accounting basically means that you disclose the following information to your opponent:
(1) the date you began using the allegedly infringing mark;
(2) the names of individuals who knew of the use when it began;
(3) the amount of traffic at your web site or business at your store; and
(4) your profits and revenues during the time you used the allegedly infringing mark.

Corrective advertising means you give notice to the public that you were using a mark confusingly similar to your opponent?s, and that you are not affiliated with your opponent.

An injunction is a judicial order to do something. An injunction can prevent you from using the allegedly infringing trademark.

Some provisions of the Lanham Act permit a trademark holder to recover attorney?s fees and court costs from an infringer.

That your opponent has listed these various remedies does not mean that it is entitled to them; do not confuse the smorgasbord of legal options with your opponent?s right to inflict any of them on you.


[back to notice text]


Question: What does the "reservation of rights" language mean? What are they "waiving" at me?

Answer: Many C&Ds will say something like, "This letter shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any rights or remedies, which are expressly reserved." This is just legalese for saying, "Even if you do what we ask in this letter, we can still sue you later." The language is standard; do not be alarmed. Litigation is extremely unpleasant, and unless your opponent is irrational (always a distinct possibility, of course), it will not bring litigation after it has obtained what it wants.


Topic maintained by Berkman Center for Internet & Society

Topic Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts