Author Claims Exclusive Right to Walk Epiphany Lane

Sender Information:
Epiphany Lane Productions (TM)
Sent by: Stephen R. Clark
[Private]
Fishers, IN, 46038, US

[back to notice text]

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]

Answer: Common words and alphabetical letters can be protectable trademarks if they are used in arbitrary or unusual ways. One cannot trademark DIESEL to sell that generic type of fuel, otherwise no other diesel fuel dealer could use the word to identify the product. However, one could trademark DIESEL as a brand of ice cream. The owner of the ice cream mark can't use its rights to prevent fuel dealers from using the word on their station pumps nor can it prevent anyone else from using the word for non-trademark purposes, such as a website listing diesel fuel dealers.

In general, the more a mark describes the good or service that it labels, the less strong the trademark protection it gets and the more freedom others have to use the same word for other purposes.

See also this question on the strength of trademarks.

[back to notice text]

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]

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]

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]

Answer: Trademark rights can last indefinitely if the trademark owner continues to use the mark to identify goods or services. According to the PTO website,

[back to notice text]

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]

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]

Answer: Non-commercial use of a trademark is generally that use which is not related to the sale of goods or services. If no funds are 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.

One example of non-commercial use is descriptive use (where the name is used to describe something, such as "He went to MacDonald's for lunch" or "She was wearing the MacDonald tartan.")

[back to notice text]

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]

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]

Answer: Copyright protects original expression in literary and artistic works such as plays, books, films, songs, software, performances, etc.). To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be an original creation of the author and not copied from any other source. In the U.S., copyright does not protect facts. Individual words cannot be copyrighted, and there is a gray area of protection for short phrases. Copyright owners have strong rights to prevent copying of their material, subject to the doctrine of "fair use." Copyrights arise when the work is fixed in a permanent form. Infringement consists of copying, publicly distributing, making changes to, or publicly distributing or performing the work without the author's permission.

Trademark only protects names and logo images that are used to label goods or services. Trademark does not require originality; its purpose is to identify the source of goods. In the U.S., trademark rights arise only when there is actual use in commerce. Infringement consists of selling goods or services under the same or a confusingly similar name. Trademark has its own types of "fair uses" including use for product comparison and criticism, news reporting, and parody.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Trademark Misuse is a theoretical concept which pertains to how a trademark holder handles its rights. It purports to be similar to the defenses brought in copyright and patent cases, which dictate that if the owner of the intellectual property rights (e.g. a patent or copyright) over-exerts its rights (e.g forces someone to buy an unrelated product to gain acess to the protected work), then the copyright or patent holder will lose its right to sue for infringement.

Recently, the theory was employed in challenging Network Solutions' dispute policy which held that registered trademark holders had the right to have Network Solutions immediately freeze any allegedly infringing domain names until the dispute was settled. It was argued that often claims with little or no support were being alleged by Registered Trademark Holders so as to prevent possibly infringing sites from materializing. Although the trademark holder's registration (and rights) were not cancelled, the argument that giving "extra" rights to registered trademark holders was unfair ultimately led to a change in Network Solution's dispute policy.

It is believed that the trademark misuse theory may still prove useful where a domain name owner is forced by a trademark owner to litigate or arbitrate a frivolous claim of infringement.