1 / 46

Establishing Protection

This article provides an overview of the different categories of trademarks, trade dress, and product designs, as well as the statutory basis and legal protections for each. It also explores the requirements for establishing protection and secondary meaning.

watsonmichael
Télécharger la présentation

Establishing Protection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Establishing Protection Intro to IP – Prof. Merges 3.15.2012 [originally scheduled for 3.12.2012]

  2. Trademark TENDER VITTLES (cat food) ROACH MOTEL (roach trap) CHAP STICK (lip balm) VISION CENTER (optical store) BEER NUTS (snack food) FAB (laundry detergent) BOLD (laundry detergent) STRONGHOLD (nails) CITIBANK (banking services) NUTRASWEET (sweetner) Category Descriptive Suggestive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Arbitrary Suggestive Suggestive Suggestive Descriptive Categorizations

  3. Statutory basis: registration of descriptive marks Except as expressly excluded in paragraphs . . . of this section, nothing in this chapter shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce. -- Lanham Act sec. 2f, 15 USC 1052(f)

  4. Trade Dress & Product Design Trade Dress Product Design

  5. Trade Dress Protection Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 USC 1125(a) Any person who shall affix, apply, … or use in connection with any goods or services … a false designation of origin … , and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce … shall be liable to a civil action … .

  6. Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana505 U.S. 763 (1992) Taco Cabana Trade Dress

  7. Word Mark TACO CABANA Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: FAST FOOD RESTAURANT SPECIALIZING IN MEXICAN FOOD. FIRST USE: 19870615. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19870615 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 85531206 Filing Date February 1, 2012 Prior Registrations 1581970;1778181;1978245;AND OTHERS

  8. Serial Number 85531206

  9. Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS Design Search Code 26.03.17 - Concentric ovals; Concentric ovals and ovals within ovals; Ovals within ovals; Ovals, concentric 26.03.21 - Ovals that are completely or partially shaded Serial Number 85234033 Filing Date February 4, 2011

  10. IPNTA 5th p 764 n. 1 Trade dress’ is the total image of the business. Taco Cabana’s trade dress may include the shape and general appearance of the exterior of the restaurant, the identifying sign, the interior kitchen floor plan, the decor, the menu, the equipment used to serve food, the servers’ uniforms and other features reflecting on the total image of the restaurant.

  11. Two Pesos (cont’d) • Findings of the District Court • Taco Cabana has an identifiable trade dress • The trade dress is non-functional • The trade dress is inherently distinctive • The trade dress has not acquired secondary meaning

  12. Sec. 1114 (Lanham Act sec. 32). Remedies; Infringement; Innocent Infringement by Printers and PublishersSec. 1114 (Lanham Act sec. 32) (1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant — (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark . . . .

  13. [I]t is common ground that §43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and that the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under §2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under §43(a) – IPNTA 5th ed p. 765

  14. IPNTA 5th at 767 The protection of trademarks and trade dress under §43(a) serves the same statutory purpose of preventing deception and unfair competition. There is no persuasive reason to apply different analysis to the two.

  15. Sec. 1125 (Lanham Act sec. 43). (1) 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 false designation of origin, … which — (A) 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 ... Shall be liable

  16. Inherently Distinctive?

  17. Defendant’s argument • Factual finding: No secondary meaning has been established • In the relevant market • Consumers do not associate this trade dress with a unique source

  18. Supreme Court: Irrelevant • Inherently distinctive trade dress is as protectible as inherently distinctive words or symbols • No basis in statute to distinguish trade dress from other types of trademarks

  19. Qouting 5th Cir with approval • “… the legal recognition of an inherently distinctive trademark or trade dress dress acknowledges the owner’s legitimate proprietary interest in its unique and valuable informational device . . .” – IPNTA 5th at 766

  20. What about “depletion” argument? • Sup Ct: We always have functionality . . . • Functional trade dress cannot be protected

  21. Korean Barbecue

  22. What about product designs? • Same issues? • Any distinctions?

  23. Inherently Distinctive?

  24. Jeans Pocket design – secondary meaning must be proven

  25. Walmart v Samara • Children’s clothing designs • Product design as opposed to packaging or trade dress • What are the requirements for establishing protection for trade dress?

  26. Samara Clothing Design

  27. IPNTA 5th 771 • These courts have assumed, often without discussion, that trade dress constitutes a ‘‘symbol’’ or ‘‘device’’ for purposes of the relevant sections, and we conclude likewise. ‘‘Since human beings might use as a ‘symbol’ or ‘device’ almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning, this language, read literally, is not restrictive.’’ Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995).

  28. Nothing in §2, however, demands the conclusion that every category of mark necessarily includes some marks ‘‘by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others’’ without secondary meaning—that in every category some marks are inherently distinctive.

  29. It seems to us that design, like color, is not inherently distinctive. The attribution of inherent distinctiveness to certain categories of word marks and product packaging derives from the fact that the very purpose of attaching a particular word to a product, or encasing it in a distinctive packaging, is most often to identify the source of the product.

  30. Trade dress in a single color or in product shape or design can never be inherently distinctive.

  31. Wal-Mart “Competition is deterred, however, not merely by successful suit but by the plausible threat of successful suit, and given the unlikelihood of inherently source-identifying design, the game of allowing suit based upon alleged inherent distinctiveness seems to us not worth the candle”

  32. Rule against inherent distinctiveness • Designed to facilitate SJ in favor of defendant/trade dress copier • NOT the same as saying that trade dress may never be registered • But – must prove secondary meaning

  33. And in Wal-Mart, we were careful to caution against misuse or over-extension of trade dress. We noted that ‘product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification.’ TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. 532 U.S. 23 (2001)

  34. Consumer predisposition “[W]e think consumer predisposition to equate the feature with the source does not exist. Consumers” do not associate product design with source, but with product features. -- IPNTA 5th 772

  35. “Consumers should not be deprived of the benefits . . . .” • Difficult to design a test for inherent distinctiveness • Functionality should also be a defense in relevant cases

  36. Err on the side of . . . • Caution: classify trade dress as product design • Do not allow inherent distinctiveness in a close case

  37. Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, 28 F.3d 863, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481, 1483 (8th Cir. 1994): “The difference between trade dress and trademark is no longer of importance in determining whether trade dress is protectable by federal law. … Indeed, trade dress may now be registered on the Principal Register of the PTO.”

  38. Registered: Thermostat Design

  39. Registration No.: 1622108 Filed: 1986-05-09 Registered: 1990-11-13 Published: 1988-11-29 Renewal Accepted: 2000-11-13 Will Expire: 2010-11-132000-11-13 First Used: 1952-00-00 OG Renewal: 2010-07-132001-03-06

  40. Goods - Services: (INT. CL. 9) THERMOSTATS International Class(es): 09 (Electrical and scientific apparatus) First Used: 1952-00-00 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. 101 COLUMBIA ROAD MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY 079622245 Affidavit Section: REGISTERED - SEC. 8 (10-YR) ACCEPTED/SEC. 9 GRANTED Affidavit Date: 2010-06-04

  41. Zippo Lighter Design

  42. Trademark Reg. No. 1,959,544 (Reg. March 5, 1996)

  43. Beebe, Cotter, Lemley, Menell & Merges

More Related