Trade Marks & Domain Names

1. Trade Marks & Domain Names Chapter 8, Forder & Quirk

2. Trade Name Protection • The right to use a name to seel goods is protected by: • Trade Marks Act • Law of passing off • These have geographic limits

3. Trademark • A sign used to distinguish goods of one trader from goods of another trader • Sign is any combination of “any letter, word, name, signature, numeral, device, heading, label, ticket, aspect of packaging, shape colour, sound or scent”. • Must be distinctive • Supported by national laws e.g. Trade Marks Act • Has a geographic limit

4. Registration • Must register trademark with government • Registrar checks application for compliance • Others can object • Procedure set out in F & Q p 222 • Registration is restricted to specified classes of goods (34) and services (8) as nominated by applicant • Application must describe specific goods\services in each class

5. Registration • Applicant is granted monopoly rights during period of registration • Rights are limited to Australia • Registered for 10 years • Registration can be extended • Owner must continue to use trademark otherwise can lose right to trademark

6. Global Trade Marks • Madrid Agreement 1891 • Common Regulations of Madrid Protocol 1996 • Establishes international system of trade mark registration • 70 countries have signed including UK, European Union, China, Japan and Australia • Single application & renewals in one country • Must be available in all selected foreign countries

7. Domain Names • Every server on the web has a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) • Consists of 4 octets e.g. 125.125.125.17 • Domains names are used as numbers are difficult to remember • Domain names are mapped to URL’s • Domain names have no geographic constraints • One name can cover all goods and services • Domain name can only be used by one person

8. Domain Names (cont.) • Consist of • Country code top level domain name (ccTLD) • Generic top level domain name (gTLD) • Second level domain name • Can be prefixed by server name • E.g. • www.microsoft.com • scaleplus.law.gov.au

9. Generic Top Level Domains

10. Domain Names (cont.) • In USA, Administered by ICANN • Names registered on a “first come first served” basis • No proprietary rights in domain name • Domain name can be suspended, cancelled or transferred pursuant to ICANN Dispute Resolution Policy

11. Domain Names (cont.) • Applicants must state that • Registration does not infringe third party rights • Courts of applicant’s domicile will adjudicate disputes • Disputes • Originally settled by courts • Now, applicants submit to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy

12. Domain Names (Australia) • Some countries have adopted a restricted approach • In Australia • Administered by auDA since 2001 • Originally, domain name had to be directly derived from the legal name of the commercial entity applying to register name • Now, some generic names (e.g. computers.com.au) allowed provided that there is a connection to applicant’s name

13. Domain Names (Australia) • Licence to use domain name can be revoked • Disputes are heard by • auDA at first • WIPO under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy

14. Trademarks & Domain Names Problems • No two domain names can be identical but two trademarks can be identical if used for different goods\services • More than one person can use the same trade mark in different territories but domain names have a global reach • No need for a domain name to have a matching trademark • Competing claims • Cybersquatting

15. Infringement of Trademarks Infringement occurs when • A person uses a trademark that is • substantially identical or • deceptively similar to the registered trademark • In connection with the sale of the specified goods or services

16. Infringement of Trademarks (cont.) • Assessment of the similarity between the 2 marks and the possible level of confusion • Use of Domain name can infringe trademark • Attempting to sell it to rightful owner is a use of the trademark in connection with trade • Highjacking by sex sites • Use of trademark by licensee to sell goods in another territory is an infringement

17. Infringement of Trademarks (cont.) • Cybersquatting • Marks & Spencer v One in a Million (F&Q p230) • Panavision v Toeppen (F&Q p231) • Courts focused on commercial use evidenced by the intention to resell • Misleading names • Hasbro v Internet Entertainment Group (F&Q p231) • Involves “dilution” of trademark

18. Infringement of Trademarks (cont.) • Preventing Competitor using its own name • Playboy v Calvin Designer Label (F&Q p231) • Inconsistent Appraoch • Amazon v Ibazar (F&Q p231)

19. Infringement of Trademarks (cont.) • Person must be licensed to sell trademarked goods in the territory • This prohibits importation where seller does not have license for purchaser’s country • Re: Trade Marks Act (Stuttgart Court of Appeal 13/10/97) (F&Q p232)

20. Infringement of Trademarks (cont.) • Meta tags may not infringe a trademark • Brookfield Communications v West Coast Entertainment (F&Q p232) • Can use descriptive terms that infringe a trademark as there is no likelihood of confusion • There is confusion when user goes to wrong site but this is acceptable as it is no different from normal search engine problems • Law may change

21. Infringement of Trademarks (cont.) • Tacking • A trademark owner can claim priority based on the date it first used a similar mark • This may be a date before registration of the mark • Consumers must consider them to both be the same mark • See Brookfield Communications v West Coast Entertainment (F&Q p232)

22. Dispute Resolution • Condition of registration that applicant: • Submits to ICANN dispute resolution process • Submits to jurisdiction of courts in applicant’s territory • Submits to jurisdiction of courts in registrar’s territory • Over 4,000 disputes adjudicated

23. Dispute Resolution (cont.) • Arbitration in 3 situations: • The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark to which the complainant has rights • The applicant has no legitimate interest in the domain name • The domain name is being used in bad faith • Cannot deal with disputes outside those listed e.g. competing valid claims to domain name

24. Dispute Resolution (cont.) • Procedure (F&Q p235) • Online complaint • To one of 4 nominated dispute resolution providers • Provider forwards complaint to owner within 3 days • Owner responds within 20 days • Provider nominates arbitrators (1 or 3) • Arbitrators have 14 days to make a decision

25. Dispute Resolution (cont.) • May decline registration pending court decision • Adaptive Molecular Technologies v Woodward (F&Q p239) • Domain can prevail over Trade Mark • Gateway v Pixelera.com (F&Q p239) • Cybersquatting • Telstra v Joen (F&Q p240) • Bad Faith • Kraft v The Pez Kiosk (F&Q p240)

26. Dispute Resolution (cont.) • Alcoholics Anonymous v Friends of Bill W (F&Q p240) • No bad faith • Respondent had a legitimate business activity not in competition with applicant • Geographical Names • Brisbane City Council v Warren Bolton Consulting (F&Q p247-248)

27. Alternative Protection • Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 1999 (USA) • Plaintiff must show • It is owner of trade mark • Defendant registered, trafficked or used in domain name identical or confusingly similar to trade mark • Domain name has bad faith intent to profit from plaintiff’s trade mark

28. Alternative Protection (cont.) • Alternatively, plaintiff must show • It is a personal name • Defendant registered the personal name as a domain name without consent • Domain name has bad faith intent to profit from plaintiff’s personal name • Allows for transfer, damages and costs • Slower than UDRP

29. Alternative Protection (cont.) • Courts are not bound by UDRP decisions • Can be used to, in effect, review UDRP decisions • Barcelona.com (F&Q p243) • Corinthians (F&Q p243) • Does this make the US Courts de facto Internet Courts of Appeal?

30. Passing Off Passing off will occur where there has been • A misrepresentation • Made in the course of trade • To prospective customers • Which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader • Which causes, or is likely to cause, actual or probable damage to the business or goodwill of another trader

31. Passing Off Cont.) • Passing off only protects the reputation that a trader can prove • May be restricted by • Geography (e.g. Prince PLC) • type of goods (e.g. Spice Girls) or • section of the community (e.g. AIM) • Mere registration of a domain name without trade is not enough • Representation can occur when domain name is offered for sale

32. Passing Off (cont.) • Factors negating misrepresentation • Name has obtained a secondary meaning and is descriptive of goods and services provided • Use of a person’s own name • Re Krupp (F&Q p249) • Actions outside the trader’s country • Internet World Case (F&Q p250)

33. Passing Off (cont.) • Factors negating misrepresentation (cont.) • Use of distinguishing material • Yahoo v Akash Arora (F&Q p250) • The products do not share a common field of activity

34. Passing Off (cont.) • Courts look for a “Common field of activity” to assess if there is a representation to a traders actual or prospective customers • Stringfellow v McCain (F&Q p251)

35. Section 52 Trade Practices Act • “A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.” • Requires • Identification of a section of the public that is likely to be misled • Assessment of the abilities of the people in this section • Objective assessment of whether these people will be misled • A causal connection between the representation and the defendant’s behavior