1 / 14

Trademark and Unfair Comp.

Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School October 19, 2004 Likelihood of Confusion. Causes of Action. Trademark Causes of Action Infringement Dilution False Advertising Cybersquatting. Infringement. Lanham Act §32(1) (15 U.S.C. §1114):

cgalvan
Download Presentation

Trademark and Unfair Comp.

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 and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School October 19, 2004 Likelihood of Confusion

  2. Causes of Action • Trademark Causes of Action • Infringement • Dilution • False Advertising • Cybersquatting

  3. Infringement • Lanham Act §32(1) (15 U.S.C. §1114): • 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 in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive … shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.

  4. Infringement • Initial Questions • Issue of fact or issue of law? • Who must be confused? • How much confusion must there be? • Confused as to what?

  5. Infringement • Types of confusion • Product (e.g. Mike shoes) • Source (e.g. Nike mittens) • Sponsorship (e.g. Nike on soup can) • Initial interest (e.g. “buy Nike’s here”) • Reverse confusion

  6. Polaroid v. Polarad287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) • Polaroid Factors • (1) Strength of plaintiff’s mark • (2) Degree of similarity of marks • (3) Proximity of products or services • (4) Likelihood of plaintiff bridging the gap • (5) Evidence of actual confusion • (6) Defendant’s good faith • (7) Quality of defendant’s products • (8) Sophistication of buyers

  7. Examples of Mark Similarity • Sight • Squirt v. Quirst (soft drinks) • Cartier v. Cattier (cosmetics) • Tornado v. Vornado (appliances) • Sound • Cygon v. Phygon (insecticide) • Huggies v. Dougies (diapers) • Bonamine v. Dramamine (drugs) • Meaning • Cyclone v. Tornado (link fencing) • Pledge v. Promise (furniture polish) • Mountain King v. Alpine Emperor (christmas trees)

  8. E&G Gallo v. Gallo Nero

  9. Banfi v. Kendall-Jackson

  10. Hypothetical Nescher “SLEEKCRAFT” AMF “SLICKCRAFT” • Recreational boats • Used for waterskiing, fishing, etc • Local retail boat stores • $50 million annual sales • Power boats • Used for racing, etc. • Local retail boat stores • $6 million annual sales

  11. Trade Dress Infringement • Lanham Act §43(a) (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)): • (a) (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 combination thereof, 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 orwith another person … shall be liable in a civil action ….

  12. Private Labels

  13. Problem

  14. Administrative Details • Next Assignment • Read VI.A.2 through p. 440 • Up to, but not including, Mastercrafters

More Related