Trademark Law

Subscribe to Trademark Law via RSS

By Jeff Pietsch

Trademark infringement occurs when a third party uses a mark in a way that infringes upon a trademark owner’s exclusive right and use of a trademark. Often, the third party will use a similar mark in a way that confuses consumers as to the source of the goods and services. For example, a fast food restaurant named “Wendi’s” would likely cause confusion with “Wendy’s.” Trademark infringement can occur only when it is likely that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods. The purpose of this article is to examine the test and factors that courts use to determine if such infringement exists.

Many courts have developed a balancing test to determine if a mark infringes on another. This balancing test has largely grown from the seminal case Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961). In that case, the court identified several variables to consider when assessing if a mark is infringing on another mark. This balancing test seeks to determine if consumers would likely be confused as to the source of the marks. If the test favors that confusion would likely result, then the court will likely rule that infringement exists. On the other hand, if confusion is unlikely or minimal, the court will likely rule against infringement.Continue Reading Trademark Infringement: Factors Considered in Consumer Confusion

With the launch of each new Top Level Domain (“TLD”), brand owners are always concerned about protecting their trademark rights and preventing individuals from cybersquatting. The .xxx TLDs are coming and brand owners have only a very short period of time left to take proactive steps to prevent their brands from being used in connection with an adult entertainment website.  If you are the owner of a registered trademark outside the adult entertainment industry, chances are you do not want to see your trademark used as an .xxx domain by an adult entertainment website. Such use can potentially harm your trademark rights or adversely affect the goodwill associated with your business or products. There are steps that you can take to prevent others from registering your trademark in connection with an .xxx domain name, but time is running out.Continue Reading Protect your Brand from EXXXposure

By Zachary Wadlé

Satoru "Miles" Kobayashi opened a new jazz club and restaurant in Manhattan in April 2010. Kobayashi named his establishment the “Miles Café” and used the “Silhouette Profile” of jazz icon Miles Davis as part of his logo. The heirs of Miles Davis felt “Kind of Blue” about this development and sued Kobayashi in federal court claiming trademark dilution, false advertising, and various violations of the Lanham Act. Davis’ heirs say Kobayashi changed his first name to Miles, claimed the real Miles Davis appeared to him in a dream and suddenly inspired him to open a restaurant bearing his name. They allege “[Kobayashi is] intentionally free-riding off the goodwill associated with the Miles Davis marks by using them to promote a jazz club entitled Miles’ Cafe in a way that is likely to mislead the public.” Davis’ heirs seek injunctive relief and the destruction of all of the "confusingly similar" Miles Café advertising and merchandise.

 

Davis’ heirs’ complaint relies on trademarks they own for the name “Miles Davis.” But you may ask how can Miles Davis’ heirs have exclusive rights over the “Miles Davis” name? Surely there are other people named Miles Davis that have just as much right to use their name as the jazz legend.  This is the reason why trademarking a personal name is difficult under trademark law. In particular, you have to demonstrate “secondary meaning” to qualify for trademark protection. Miles Davis won eight Grammys. His 1959 album "Kind of Blue" has sold more than 4 million copies. He was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2006 and was declared a national treasure’ by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009. These kind of laurels helped prove the requisite “secondary meaning” of Miles Davis’ name, and allowed his heirs to assert trademark rights against Mr. Kobayashi.

 Continue Reading What’s in a Name?

By Zachary Wadlé

The term “geek” is no longer a pejorative term. Just ask consumer electronic retail giant Best Buy. The chain recently threatened online rival Newegg.com with legal action, arguing that its Geek On advertising slogan sounded too similar to Best Buy’s tech support service, Geek Squad. Newegg responded by posting Best Buy’s cease-and-desist letter on Facebook and suggesting that Best Buy was attempting to subjugate geeks everywhere. Newegg.com’s posting generated substantial negative reaction towards Best Buy from other self-professed geeks who took issue with Best Buy’s efforts to claim sole rights to “geek” status (and trademark rights).

In its defense, Best Buy says it is just narrowly protecting its Geek Squad trademark against overzealous competitors like Newegg.com. In fact, federal records show that Best Buy has disputed more than a dozen geek-themed trademarks in the past decade, including Rent a Geek, Geek Rescue and Speak With A Geek. But why does a company like Best Buy risk the negative publicity associated with threatening competitors like Newegg.com with legal action over “geek” terminology? The answer is that companies that don’t aggressively defend trademarks, even against seemingly innocuous intrusions, risk having courts decide that they abandoned the trademarks later when more substantive disputes crop up.Continue Reading Best Buy Gets “Geeked Up” Over Trademark Protection

by David Muradyan

The Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127,defines a trademark to mean “any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof” used by any person “to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.”  Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), the holder of a registered trademark can file a trademark infringement claim against any person who, without the registered trademark holder’s consent, (1) uses any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark; (2) in commerce; (3) in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services; (4) where such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 1988); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (“Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . .  is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person . . . shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”). Continue Reading Trademark Basics: Infringement