Trademark Law

Subscribe to Trademark Law via RSS

by Jeff Pietsch

Trademark law is traditionally concerned with protecting consumers. Trademarks protect consumers by helping consumers identify the source of the goods or service. For example, when a consumer buys a product, she knows exactly what she will get with the product based on its mark. Trademark law was designed to protect these consumers by protecting these marks against copycats or products with confusingly similar marks. 

Not all trademark law, however, is aimed at protecting consumers. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (the “Act”) is aimed at protecting a company’s or individual’s property right in its trademark. Dilution is defined as “the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of competition between the parties or the likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.” In essence, dilution forbids the use of a famous trademark by others in any manner that lessens the uniqueness of the mark. Again, the purpose of the dilution doctrine is not to protect the consumer, but to protect the property right and goodwill that a company has developed in a mark.Continue Reading Trademark Basics: Dilution

by David Muradyan

Can an advertiser use a competitor’s registered trademark as a keyword with Google’s  AdWords program to advertise its own product or service? In Binder v. Disability Group, Inc., Case No. CV 07-2760-GHK (Ssx), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7037 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2011) (“Binder”), defendants Disability Group, Inc., a law firm specializing in Social Security benefit claims, and Ronald Miller (collectively, the “Defendants”), used and purchased plaintiff Binder & Binder’s (the “Plaintiffs”) trademark in an advertising campaign through Google AdWords. Google’s AdWords program allows advertisers to purchase targeted ads on the results page of a Google search. In order to have their ads appear on the search results page, Google advertisers select and bid on AdWords (purchased keywords) so that their ad might be displayed on the search results. Defendants used Plaintiffs’ registered trademark—“Binder and Binder”—as AdWords linked to their website. As a result, Plaintiffs brought a trademark infringement claim, among others, under the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).Continue Reading Advertisers Beware: Using a Competitor’s Registered Trademark as a Keyword with Google’s AdWords Program can Constitute Trademark Infringement

by Matt Massari

People often attempt to register the names of public or famous figures as trademarks for use in association with novelty items. Section 2(c) of the Trademark Act “absolutely bars the registration of a designation that identifies a particular living individual absent written consent.”  In determining whether a particular living individual with that “name” would be associated with the mark, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) must consider “(1) if the person is so well known that the public would reasonably assume the connection, or (2) if the individual is publicly connected with the business in which the mark is being used.” In short, this provision of the Act “is intended to protect the intellectual property right of privacy and publicity that a living person has in his/her identity.” But does the President of the United States need such IP and privacy protection, such that one cannot register his/her name as a trademark for novelty items? Yes, according to the TTAB.Continue Reading “Obamification”: Barack Obama as a Trademark

by Zachary Wadlé

On July 17, 2008, Apple, Inc. applied to register the trademark “APP STORE” covering the Cupertino based company’s online store where users can buy various software applications for their iPhones, iPads, and/or iPods. Apple eventually completed the trademark examination process, and the mark proceeded to publication in the Trademark Official Gazette on January 5, 2010. On July 6, 2010, Microsoft Corporation filed an Opposition with the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board against Apple’s proposed registration of the APP STORE trademark. Two weeks ago, Microsoft filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that Apple’s trademark application be summarily rejected by the Board. The centerpiece of Microsoft’s motion is the argument that Apple’s proposed APP STORE trademark is “generic” and therefore ineligible for trademark protection. The Trademark Board must therefore decide whether Apple’s proposed APP STORE trademark is “generic” or not.Continue Reading Microsoft v. Apple In a “Generic” Trademark Dispute

by Jeffrey Pietsch

Naked licensing is not as fun as the name suggests. Rather it can mark the end of a trademark owner’s exclusive right to their trademark. A trademark owner may grant a license to another to use the owner’s trademark. For example, following the San Francisco Giants’ World Series victory, the amount and type of products that featured the Giants trademark was mindboggling. Each of these products, if legally produced, would have obtained a license from the Giants to produce these goods. The consumer purchasing these goods and seeing the Giants’ trademark would have an idea as to the quality of the merchandise based on the trademark. Naked licensing occurs when the trademark owner fails to exercise adequate quality control over the licensee. This failure may result in the trademark ceasing to represent the quality of the product or service the consumer has come to expect.   The Ninth Circuit stated that such licensing is “inherently deceptive and constitutes the abandonment of any rights to the trademark by the licensor.” Continue Reading Naked Licensing: Trademark Owners Beware