1 / 16

Trademark Law Meets The Internet

Trademark Law Meets The Internet. A. Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law http://www.law.tm INET 2002. TM Rights Are Part of a Trend: The IP ‘Grab’. Scope and reach of TM rights were growing before the Internet

danton
Télécharger la présentation

Trademark Law Meets The Internet

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. Trademark Law Meets The Internet A. Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law http://www.law.tm INET 2002

  2. TM Rights Are Part of a Trend: The IP ‘Grab’ • Scope and reach of TM rights were growing before the Internet • Net provides a threat to TMs; reaction is to create even greater rights online • Internet rules have feedback to Trademark law generally. INET 2002 - Froomkin

  3. Basic (Traditional) Principles of TM Law • Closely allied to punishment of “unfair competition” & “passing off” • Protect the consumer’s expectation • Protect the manufacturer’s “goodwill” in the mark • Encourage quality, disscourage deception • TMs reduce transactions costs • TM violators are free riders, fraudsters INET 2002 - Froomkin

  4. Nature of Trademark Right • Trademarks are GEOGRAPHIC • Trademarks are SECTORAL • Apple Computer, Apple Records, no problem • 1,000 Bob’s Pizza’s, no problem (subject to issues of registration) • Basic test is commercial confusion INET 2002 - Froomkin

  5. Where Do Trademmarks Come From? • Registration in the trademark office® • National or state • Harmonized by treaties • In common law countries - by usage™ • Complex rules for sorting priority • First user (senior user) has superior rights -- where it has actually been used • Registered user gets monopoly rights in all places in jurisdiction name isn’t yet used INET 2002 - Froomkin

  6. But, Note Well • Mere registration gives no rights without use. Plus, ‘don’t use it: you lose it’ • Trademark law protects source identifiers of goods, not words “in gross” • Generic words can’t be trademarked -- for their generic meanings • Traditionally it’s a limited right INET 2002 - Froomkin

  7. Growth of the Mega-Mark • Crosses sectoral categories - and borders • Transferable reputation of quality? • What good does Batman stand as source identifier of? • Growth of the information economy • The brand IS the product (think “swoosh”) INET 2002 - Froomkin

  8. Dilution • Protects mark from people trading on its renown with unrelated goods • Mostly a product of last 50 years • Federal law 1995 protects only “famous” marks; treaty speaks of ‘well known’ too • Narrow? Broad? Broader? ‘In Gross’? • TeleTech? WaWa? • Wedgewood (for homes) INET 2002 - Froomkin

  9. Domain Names--TM Nightmare • Can register without prior use • Don’t use it, no problem • Are not geographic -- DN is everywhere • And it’s not sectoral either • It was free, is still cheap • Cybersquatters • Typosquatters • “Wrong” uses INET 2002 - Froomkin

  10. Special Cybersquatting Remedies • ACPA • Makes cybersquatting an offense • Applies to gTLDs & (some?) ccTLDs • First statutory damages in trademark law: $100,000 • UDRP • Double contract of adhesion • Incentive to ‘try it on’ • P. picks the arbitration provider causes unhappy incentives for arbitration service providers INET 2002 - Froomkin

  11. Misuses of TM Law • Quieting critics • “Sucks” cases • Fair use that gets sued anyway • What’s “commercial” anyway? • ISPs exposed to users’ actions • CDA § 230 protections do not apply • DMCA ‘takedown’ protections? No. • Confusion test highly factual • Uncertainty about what’s commercial INET 2002 - Froomkin

  12. UDRP-Elements • DN ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to TM • Common law marks in Spain? • Names? “Madonna”? • No ‘rights or legitimate interests’ • First Amendment? • DN registered andbeing used in “bad faith” INET 2002 - Froomkin

  13. UDRP-Defenses • Prior use (or plan) for bona-fide offering of goods or services • You are commonly known by the name • Legitimate non-commercial or fair use “without intent for commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the mark”. INET 2002 - Froomkin

  14. UDRP-Problems • RDNH • It’s cheap, and encourages ‘try-ons’ • Arbitrator quality is variable • Strategic behavior by plaintiffs • Notorious cases: names, geographic identifiers, tatas, Guinness beer • Procedural provisions really really suck • See “Causes and Cures” • http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf INET 2002 - Froomkin

  15. The Feedback Loop? • “Someone’s got MY name” • Tail that wags the ICANN dog? • Increasing ‘propertization’ of TM rights • If a DN is property (is it?) does that encourage courts and businesses to think of TM as classic property? INET 2002 - Froomkin

  16. Thank you • http://www.law.tm • froomkin@law.tm INET 2002 - Froomkin

More Related