Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Domain Names and Trademarks > Notices > Scientology complains ScientologyWatch infringes trademark (NoticeID 505, Printer-friendly version

Scientology complains ScientologyWatch infringes trademark

November 20, 2002


Sender Information:
Religious Technology Center (Scientology)
Sent by: [Private]
Moxon & Kobrin
Los Angeles, CA, 90010, US

Recipient Information:
David S. Touretzky
West Mifflin, PA, 15122, USA

Sent via: VIA U.S. MAIL AN
Re: Unauthorized Use of Federally Registered Trademark

Dear Mr. Touretzky:

Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the trademark and service mark "SCIENTOLOGY," which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1,775,441; 1,540,928; 1,342,353; 1,329,474; 1,318,717; 1,306,997; and 898018. We also represent the Church of Scientology International ("CSI"), which is the licensee of the Scientology mark.

You are currently the owner of the domain name, "" Your registration of that domain causes your name to be falsely associated with our client's registered mark as owner and creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of this domain name in violation of state and federal law, including the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C S 1125(a) and various international laws.

Additionally, the Scientology trademark is famous, distinctive and unique. The registration of this mark in the domain name, "" dilutes the distinctiveness of the mark in violation of the federal trademark antidilution statute, 15 U.S.C. S 1125(c) and California's antidilution statute. See, Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 1999); Mattel, Inc. v. Internet dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2nd Cir. 1994).

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") is also implicated by your registration of this domain name. The Act makes it illegal for a person to register or to use, an Internet domain name, that is "identical or confusingly similar" to the distinctive or famous trademark of another person or entity. Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3rd Cit. 2001). Statutory damages can be awarded for violation of the Act in an amount not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 for each domain name. 15 U.S.C. S 1117(d). In Shields, the court imposed a $30,000 statutory damage award against a cybersquatter under the Act.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has specifically addressed the question of whether "Scientologywatch" infringes the Scientology mark. When another person applied for a trademark registration for Scientology Watch late last year, the PTO resoundingly rejected that registration as an infringement of the Scientology trademark under several of the registrations listed above. A copy of that letter is enclosed [in U.S. mail].

Accordingly, we request that you immediately cease and desist the use of this domain name and transfer it to our client, CSI.

I look forward to hearing from you promptly so we can resolve this issue amicably.

Very truly yours,
Los Angeles, CA 90010


FAQ: Questions and Answers

[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 can be protected as a trademark?

Answer: You can protect

  • names (such as company names, product names)
  • domain names if they label a product or service
  • images
  • symbols
  • logos
  • slogans or phrases
  • colors
  • product design
  • product packaging (known as trade dress)

[back to notice text]

Question: What exactly are the rights a trademark owner has?

Answer: In the US, trademark rights come from actual use of the mark to label one's services or products or they come from filing an application with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that states an intention to use the mark in future commerce. In most foreign countries, trademarks are valid only upon registration.

There are two trademark rights: the right to use (or authorize use) and the right to register.

The person who establishes priority rights in a mark gains the exclusive right to use it to label or identify their goods or services, and to authorize others to do so. According to the Lanham Act, determining who has priority rights in a mark involves establishing who was the first to use it to identify his/her goods.

The PTO determines who has the right to register the mark. Someone who registers a trademark with the intent to use it gains "constructive use" when he/she begins using it, which entitles him/her to nationwide priority in the mark. However, if two users claim ownership of the same mark (or similar marks) at the same time, and neither has registered it, a court must decide who has the right to the mark. The court can issue an injunction (a ruling that requires other people to stop using the mark) or award damages if people other than the owner use the trademark (infringement).

Trademark owners do not acquire the exclusive ownership of words. They only obtain the right to use the mark in commerce and to prevent competitors in the same line of goods or services from using a confusingly similar mark. The same word can therefore be trademarked by different producers to label different kinds of goods. Examples are Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets.

Owners of famous marks have broader rights to use their marks than do owners of less-well-known marks. They can prevent uses of their marks by others on goods that do not even compete with the famous product.

[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 trademark holder's product or service in conjunction with his or her own. To invoke this defense, the defendant must prove the following elements:
      • the product or service cannot be readily identified without the 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 trademark holder 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: 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 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: What is false designation of origin?

Answer: It covers similar ground to trademark infringement, but is more specific to misrepresentation of source, and applies even when there is no trademark at issue. If your website makes it appear that you sell products made by Company X, but in fact you make these products in your garage, Company X might accuse you of falsely designating the origin of (or "passing off") your items.

[back to notice text]

Question: What implication does alleged confusion have on claims of trademark infringement?

Answer: A mark that is confusingly similar so closely resembles a registered trademark that it is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the product or service. Consumers could be likely to believe that the product with the confusingly similar mark is produced by the organization that holds the registered mark. Someone who holds a confusingly similar mark benefits from the good will associated with the registered mark and can lure customers to his/her product or service instead. Infringement is determined by whether your mark is confusingly similar to a registered mark. The factors that determine infringement include:

  • proof of actual confusion
  • strength of the established mark
  • proximity of the goods in the marketplace
  • similarity of the marks? sound
  • appearance and meaning
  • how the goods are marketed
  • type of product and how discerning the customer is
  • intent behind selecting the mark
  • likelihood of expansion in the market of the goods

[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 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 does "distinctive" mean?

Answer: "Distinctive" is a term of art in trademark law and is determined by analyzing several factors. Essentially, a mark is distinctive when the consumers have come to recognize it as the source or origin of certain goods or services. Take the word "bronco": consumers recognize it as a brand of automobile; therefore it is distinctive as to automobiles. But it is not distinctive as to horses, where it would be generic, nor as to baby diapers since there is no one offering such goods under that label. Some words can never become distinctive as marks if they generically describe the very good or service for which they are used (i.e., one cannot trademark the word "basketball" to describe a brand of basketballs.) In general, if a word has been in substantially exclusive and continuous use as a mark in commerce for five years, it will be deemed distinctive as to those goods/services 15 USC 1052(f).

[back to notice text]

Question: How do I know which marks are famous and what difference does it make?

Answer: Owners of "famous" marks have special privileges. They can block new uses of any similar name even if consumers wouldn't be confused by it. They are protected against "dilution" and "tarnishment" as well.

If you walk up to someone on the street and ask someone if they recognize the word or symbol, and they recognize it right away, it is probably famous. If you have to remind them ("The Berkman Center is this crazy thing at Harvard

[back to notice text]

Question: How does the ACPA apply to domain names?

Answer: It makes it illegal to register, "traffic in" or use a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous mark (or which dilutes a famous mark).

[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 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 "" 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: What defenses are there to trademark infringement or dilution?

Answer: Defendants in a trademark infringement or dilution claim can assert basically two types of affirmative defense: fair use or parody.

Fair use occurs when a descriptive mark is used in good faith for its primary, rather than secondary (trademark), meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to result. So, for example, a cereal manufacturer may be able to describe its cereal as consisting of "all bran," without infringing upon Kelloggs' rights in the mark "All Bran." Such a use is purely descriptive, and does not invoke the secondary meaning of the mark. Similarly, in one case, a court held that the defendant's use of "fish fry" to describe a batter coating for fish was fair use and did not infringe upon the plaintiff's mark "Fish-Fri." Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983). Such uses are privileged because they use the terms only in their purely descriptive sense.

Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer's product, not the user's own product. For example, in a recent case, the newspaper USA Today ran a telephone poll, asking its readers to vote for their favorite member of the music group New Kids on the Block. The New Kids on the Block sued USA Today for trademark infringement. The court held that the use of the trademark "New Kids on the Block" was a privileged nominative use because: (1) the group was not readily identifiable without using the mark; (2) USA Today used only so much of the mark as reasonably necessary to identify it; and (3) there was no suggestion of endorsement or sponsorship by the group. The basic idea is that use of a trademark is sometimes necessary to identify and talk about another party's products and services. When the above conditions are met, such a use will be privileged. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).

Finally, certain parodies of or using trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis. For example, some courts have applied the general "likelihood of confusion" analysis, using the First Amendment as a factor in the analysis. Other courts have expressly balanced First Amendment considerations against the degree of likely confusion. Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark.

So, for example, a risqu? parody of an L.L. Bean magazine advertisement (L.L. Beam's "Back to School Sex Catalog") was found not to constitute infringement. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1987). Similarly, the use of a pig-like character named "Spa'am" in a Muppet movie was found not to violate Hormel's rights in the trademark "Spam." Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996). On the other hand, "Gucchie Goo" diaper bags were found not to be protected under the parody defense, Gucci Shops, Inc. v. R.H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Similarly, posters bearing the logo "Enjoy Cocaine" were found to violate the rights of Coca-Cola in the slogan "Enjoy Coca-Cola", Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). In short -- although the courts recognize a parody defense, the precise contours of that defense are difficult to outline with any precision.

[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 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, 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 constitutes a violation of the Act?

Answer: In addition to having a domain name that steps on the toes of an existing trademark as mentioned above, a person will be held liable only if he or she has a "bad faith intent to profit from the mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark." An example of a personal name that is protected as a mark would be the name of a Hollywood celebrity whose name is used as a trademark to identify his or her performance services.

[back to notice text]

Question: Who can use the ACPA?

Answer: The owner of any trademark protected under US federal law, whether registered or not, so long as the mark

  1. is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, or
  2. is a famous mark at the time of registration, or
  3. is a "mark, word or name" that is protected because it is reserved for use by the Red Cross or the U.S. Olympic Committee.

[back to notice text]

Question: I registered the domain first. Why can't I keep it?

Answer: Maybe you can. The ACPA only protects trademark owners against cybersquatters. If your registration or use doesn't violate the Act, you should be able to keep the domain. However, being the first to register a name doesn't give you special rights or protections if you violate the law. Just as in physical space, you cannot use another's trademark to your own commercial advantage if the result is to "steal" the value of the trademark's goodwill and turn it to your own advantage. Read the remaining FAQs that explain what the ACPA actually forbids.

[back to notice text]

Question: What are the possible penalties for violating the ACPA?

Answer: Normally, the domain name holder will not evaporate, and can be sued directly. In such a case, the court can order the cancellation or transfer of the domain registration, as well as require the payment of money damages to the plaintiff trademark owner.

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

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.

[back to notice text]

Question: What does the PTO's refusal to register a trademark mean?

Answer: The Trademark Office can reject a proposed mark for a number of reasons, for example, that the term does not function as a trademark (does not identify the source of goods or services), that the term is generic for the goods or services, or that the term is likely to cause confusion with an existing registered mark. Further, an application might be rejected because of non-compliance with procedural rules, such as improperly specifying the class in which the mark is used. If the applicant does not respond to the "office action", the application is abandoned.

See the Trademark Office's Frequently Asked Questions for more.

[back to notice text]

Question: Does the PTO's refusal to register a mark mean the mark infringes someone else's trademark?

Answer: No. Even if the Trademark Examiner refuses registration of a mark on the grounds of likelihood of confusion, that does not mean use of the term infringes a trademark. Only a court can rule as a factual matter that the likelihood of confusion amounts to trademark infringement.

[back to notice text]

Question: I have an unsettling feeling in the pit of my stomach about the tone of the C&D I received. Does the tone of the c & d mean I am going to lose this dispute?

Answer: "Gorilla Chest Thumping" refers to the tone of most C&Ds: it?s nasty. The first thing to do is take a deep breath. The second thing to do is to acknowledge that the tone of the letter is a function of the letter writer?s perception that aggression is the best defense: do not take it personally. The third thing to do is ignore the tone and focus on the facts. You may eventually choose to respond aggressively yourself, but do not do so because your opponent has egged you into a useless game of whose gorilla is bigger. Take a tip from Ani Di Franco: "If you play their game, girl, you?re never gonna win." Face Up and Sing, Out of Range, Righteous Babe Records (1994).

[back to notice text]

Question: What facts should a C&D include?

Answer: Recitation of Facts. Read this section of the letter carefully. It should contain some or all of the following information:
(1) the trademark that is allegedly being infringed;
(2) the trademark, domain name or other use that is allegedly doing the infringing;
(3) the products and services on which your opponent uses the allegedly infringed mark;
(4) the date your opponent commenced such use; and
(5) the registration numbers, if the trademarks are registered with the Patent & Trademark Office.

[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

[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, 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.

Topic maintained by Berkman Center for Internet & Society

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