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 > Trademark > Notices > VW Gnaws on Craftswoman (NoticeID 3370) Printer-friendly version

VW Gnaws on Craftswoman

February 27, 2006

 

Sender Information:
Volkswagen of American, Inc.
Sent by: [private]
Howard Phillips & Andersen
560 E. 200 So. Su
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
[Private]
Franklin, WI, 53132, United St


Sent via: by e-mail and [pr
Re: VW BEETLE trademark infringement

February 27, 2006

VIA EMAIL [private] AND
VIA REGULAR MAIL

[private]
Green Valley, Arizona 85614

Re: BARBPEL.COM ? Counterfeit Volkswagen Products

Dear [private]:

This law firm represents Volkswagen of America, Inc. (?VWoA?) in trademark enforcement actions and in trademark litigation. VWoA is a subsidiary of and the exclusive U.S. importer of cars manufactured by Volkswagen AG and, as such, VWoA is charged with protecting the trademarks associated with those cars. VWoA and Volkswagen AG are hereinafter collectively referred to as ?VW.?

VW takes policing and enforcement of their trademark rights very seriously, and has recently obtained preliminary and permanent injunctions against infringers who market and sell counterfeit Volkswagen trademarks without authorization. VW has also cooperated with law enforcement in obtaining felony counterfeiting convictions against counterfeiters of the VW trademarks. State of California v. Lee, et al., BA274850, 2005 LA Criminal Division (three felony convictions and restitution of $5,000.00 for counterfeit VW and Audi baseball caps).

Recently it has come to the attention of VW that you are infringing upon VW?s intellectual property rights by manufacturing and/or selling patchwork boxes bearing the distinctive shape of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? without authorization. The distinctive shape of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? is a duly registered trademark in the United States that belongs to VW. Use of this trademark, or any confusingly similar variations thereof, without the express, written consent of VW, violates state and federal law, is misleading to the public, and constitutes a misappropriation of the goodwill and reputation developed by VW.

The law is well-established that you may not place counterfeits of the Volkswagen trademarks on your products, and/or sell products manufactured by others that bear counterfeits of the Volkswagen trademarks. Ford Motor Company v. Lloyd Design Corp., 184 F.Supp.2d Barbpel.com 665, 667 (E.D.Mich. 2002) (permanently enjoining the use of counterfeits of various Ford, Jaguar, and Aston Martin trademarks on floor mats, and granting Ford its attorneys? fees and costs because of ?Defendant?s flagrant disregard for Plaintiffs? trademark rights.?). VW cannot tolerate counterfeiting and infringement of its protected trademarks. An image of your product as displayed on your website is shown below for your review.

The law is also well settled that automobile manufacturers have protectable trade dress rights in the distinctive shapes of their automobiles. See, e.g., Liquid Glass Enterprises, Inc., v. Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 8 F.Supp.2d 398, 402 (D.N.J. 1998). See also, Ferrari S.P.A. Esercizio v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 1240 (6th Cir. 1991), cert. denied 505 U.S. 1219, 112 S.Ct. 3028 (1992) ("[T]he unique exterior design and shape of the Ferrari vehicles are their `mark' or `trade dress' which distinguish the vehicles' exterior shapes not simply as distinctively attractive designs, but as Ferrari creations"); Chrysler Corp. v. Silva, 118 F.3d 56, 58-59 (1st Cir. 1997) (trade dress of Dodge Viper protectable). Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rickard, 492 F.2d 474 (5th 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?). Volkswagenwerk v. Smith, 471 F.Supp.385 (D.C.N.M. 1979) (?For many years the Volkswagen Silhouette has been synonymous in meaning with ?Volkswagen.??)

More specifically, numerous courts have recognized that VW has extensive trade dress rights in the distinctive shape of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE?. For example, in Volkswagenwerk v. Smith, the court found:

?The long standing and distinctive shape of this Volkswagen sedan has caused the American public to identify the shape and the outline and picture of the shape of this automobile ("the Volkswagen Silhouette") with VWAG and with the products and services sold by the authorized Volkswagen network. For many years the Volkswagen Silhouette has been synonymous in meaning with ?Volkswagen.?? 471 F.Supp.385 (D.C.N.M. 1979).

VW produced the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? automobile for nearly 70 years, and produced more than 21 million Classic BEETLE? vehicles. When the production of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? ceased in 2003, the story made international headlines. As recently stated by the Washington Post, the Classic VOLKWAGEN? BEETLE? is ?the most popular car ever made1.? The long-standing fame and reputation of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE?, together with the recognition by numerous courts of VW?s extensive rights in the distinctive shape and styling of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? conclusively show that the trade dress of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? has acquired secondary meaning.

Your selection of VW?s distinctive trademarks and trade dress can only lead to the conclusion that you are attempting to capitalize on and profit from the goodwill and reputation of VW by misappropriating VW?s registered trademarks and trade dress in its products.

In order that VW may assess what damages it has suffered as a result of your sale of products using counterfeits of the VW trademarks, please provide the following information no later than March 13, 2006:

1) The number of counterfeit products set forth by item (e.g., the classic V VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? boxes) sold or distributed bearing all VW trademarks or any variation thereof;

2) The gross revenue received from the sale of such counterfeit products set forth by item;

1 Kevin Sullivan, Love for the Bug Runs Out; VW to Close Last Classic Beetle Assembly Line, THE WASHINGTON POST., June 23, 2003.

3) The time period during which such counterfeit products have been offered and sold;

4) The names and addresses of all non-retail purchasers of the counterfeit products and the number of each product listed by item purchased by each such purchaser; and

5) The names and addresses of all suppliers of the counterfeit products.

VW further demands that you turn over to VW for destruction all unsold counterfeit items no later than March 13, 2006. Volkswagen also demands that no later than March 13, 2006, you pay Volkswagen by cashier?s check damages in the amount of twenty five percent (25%) of the gross revenues from the sales of any counterfeit products using the Volkswagen trademarks or trade dress, or $5,000.00, whichever is greater.2 See, e.g., Porsche AG v. Universal Brass, Inc., 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1593 (W.D.Wash. 1995) (enjoining sale of counterfeit Porsche
products, including key chains and license plate frames).

The purpose of this letter is to secure your voluntary agreement to cease from violating VW?s intellectual property rights. To demonstrate your agreement to do so, VW requires that you sign and return the below-attached agreement to me by no later than March 13, 2006. If I have not received a signed copy of the agreement from you by the close of business on that day, including the required information, products, and payment, I will infer that you are unwilling to resolve this matter voluntarily and will advise VW to prepare to file a complaint against you in federal district court.

You may be infringing VW's intellectual property rights in other ways, and VW reserves the right to bring to your attention other matters that VW believes infringe its copyrights, trademarks, and trade dress rights, or constitute false advertisement.

This letter is without prejudice to all rights of VW, including past or future royalties, past or future damages, attorney?s fees, and to bring enforcement actions for all past or future violations of Volkswagen?s rights.

In the event that Volkswagen is forced to litigate this matter, Volkswagen will seek all profits from the sale of such products trebled as damages, plus its attorneys? fees and costs.

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

Very truly yours,

[private]
cc: Volkswagen of America
February 27, 2006

AGREEMENT

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

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

(1) immediately cease from the unauthorized use of the distinctive shape of the
Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? and all other VW trademarks;

(2) immediately turn over to VW?s counsel for destruction all products or materials bearing the distinctive shape of the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE?, as well as any other designs or logos that are confusingly similar to the VW trademarks;

(3) immediately cease and desist from the advertisement and/or sale of any products bearing counterfeits of the VW trademarks, and immediately turn over to VW?s counsel, for destruction, all parts bearing counterfeits of the VW Trademarks, as well as any other designs or logos that are confusingly similar to the VW trademarks;

(4) provide the following information no later than March 13, 2006:

a) The number of counterfeit products set forth by item sold (e.g., the Classic VOLKSWAGEN? BEETLE? bank and all other products bearing VW trademarks, etc) or distributed bearing the VW trademarks or trade dress;

b) The gross revenue received from the sale of such counterfeit products set forth by item;

c) The time period during which such counterfeit products been offered or sold;

d) The names and addresses of all non-retailer purchasers of the counterfeit products and the number of each product listed by item purchased by each such purchaser; and

e) The names and addresses of all suppliers of the counterfeit products.

(5) No later than March 13, 2006, pay Volkswagen by cashier?s check damages in the amount of twenty five percent (25%) of the gross revenues from the sales of any products using the Volkswagen trademarks, or $5,000.00, whichever is greater.

The undersigned further agrees that no later than March 13, 2006, the undersigned will provide evidence of compliance of the matters set forth above to VW?s counsel.

The undersigned agrees and acknowledges that any violation or breach of this Agreement will cause irreparable harm to VW, and that VW will be entitled to liquidated damages of $10,000.00, or what ever profits realized by the undersigned as a result of the violation of this agreement, whichever is greater. The undersigned further agrees and acknowledges that VW will be entitled to entry of 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 it breaches this Agreement, it will pay all costs incurred by VW in enforcing this Agreement, including reasonable attorney?s fees, whether incurred with or without suit or before or after judgment.

AGREED TO:

BARBPEL.COM

By: _______________________________

Its: ________________________________

Date: _______________________________


 
FAQ: Questions and Answers

[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: 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 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 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: Does the product or service on which I am using the mark matter? Do dates matter?

Answer: It matters if the mark is not famous. The C&D should disclose your opponent?s products and/or services and the date on which it commenced use of the allegedly infringed mark. This will help you guesstimate whether a likelihood of confusion between the marks exists. For instance, if your opponent uses ?opera? on truffles and you use "opera" on silk gloves, consumers are not likely to confuse the products. If the mark is determined by a court to be famous, however, confusion is irrelevant and [non-fair] use on any type of goods may be an infringement.

The date on which your opponent began using the mark is significant because a junior (later) user cannot displace a senior (first) user in the senior user?s geographic region. In other words, if you have owned a chain of donut shops called "Lucky Donuts," with locations in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut since 1943, a national chain called "Lucky Donuts" founded in 1979 has no trademark infringement claim against you in the NJ-NY-CT tri-state area. If your opponent has begun using its allegedly infringed mark after your use, you have another reason to question the merit of the C&D.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is trade dress?

Answer: Trade Dress is a distinctive, nonfunctional feature, which distinguishes a merchant's or manufacturer's goods or services from those of another. The trade dress of a product involves the "total image" and can include the color of the packaging, the configuration of goods, etc... Even the theme of a restaurant may be considered trade dress. Examples include the packaging for Wonder Bread, the tray configuration for Healthy Choice frozen dinners, and the color scheme of Subway sub shops. Such a broad and ambiguous definition makes trade dress very easy to manipulate. Seeking protection against trade dress infringements can be vital to the survival of a business.


[back to notice text]


Question: How can I find out if someone has a valid trademark?

Answer: It isn't easy. In the United States, a trademark owner isn't required to register the mark anywhere, so there is no single central list of them all. Unlike most other nations, registration here is optional.

Many owners do register their marks with the government, however, to better notify the world of their claims. Each state has its own trademark registry for goods and services sold locally. For companies that sell in more than one state, there is a US federal registry that is accessible online through TESS. TESS is searchable by key word as well as by registration number.

Because registration is not required, however, a word might still be a protected mark even if it doesn't appear in any of these locations.

When a company is selecting a new brand, its trademark attorney will usually conduct a "trademark availability" search which will look in many different locations to try and ferret out competing uses of the desired name. Business directories, Internet search engines, telephone directories are other searched sources. Multi-national vendors will search trademark registries in foreign nations as well.

Even the most exhaustive search will not be conclusive, however, but it will usually indicate that if there is any other commercial use, it is probably limited to a very local area. It is OK to use the same mark as another company, so long as the new use isn't likely to confuse consumers.


[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 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: 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 unfair competition?

Answer: "Unfair competition" covers a wide range of kinds of unjust business behavior---so many kinds, in fact, that it is impossible to give one simple general definition. In essence, unfair competition means trademark infringement or false advertising to confuse the public. In most states, only commercial competitors can be engaged in "unfair competition."


[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 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: What does "Secondary Meaning" refer to?

Answer: Many words are commonly used in ordinary language. Can they become trademarks? They can if they acquire special significance in reference to particular goods. For example, "apple" is a common word, but also a trademark for computers and for recordings. The word has acquired "secondary meaning" in each product category because consumers associate it with a particular brand of product.

Secondary meaning gives trademark owners protection, but does not prevent people from using the same word for other types of products or in common conversation.


[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: 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