“Fair Use” Trumps Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law the Supreme Court Rules in KP Permanent v. Lasting Impression
Michael Fuller In KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc., v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant asserting the affirmative defense of fair use in response to a claim of trademark infringement does not have to shoulder the burden of proving there was no likelihood of confusion as a result of their fair use. The Supreme Court granted KP Permanent’s petition for certiorari in this matter to resolve a split among six of the federal courts of appeal. This article will first consider both the common law and statutory history underlying the fair use doctrine of trademark law....
Been Deep Linked? Apparent Authority Might Link You to Liability
Tan Pham Current trends in trademark law have not met the issue of deep linking with open arms. To date, there is a dearth of cases that touch on deep linking and trademark infringement. Cases such as Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com dismissed claims of deep linking as trademark infringement with little explanation, simply stating that deep linking itself is not a trademark violation absent “confusion of source.” Yet, there is no case to set the boundaries at the other end of when deep linking would be trademark infringement; it can be implied then that the traditional tests of likelihood of confusion would most...
The Best Offense Is a Good Defense: How the Washington [NFL team] Overcame Challenges to Their Registered Trademarks
Lynette Paczkowski Editors Note: This article contains a racial slur the IPTF does not support. Discussion of the slur is in a purely academic context. Please direct any comments or questions to bciptf@gmail.com In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decided Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., in which a group of Native Americans (the “Petitioners”) alleged that the term “Redskin(s)” was a pejorative, derogatory, degrading, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person; the marks owned by Pro-Football, Inc. (“Pro-Football”), were offensive, disparaging and scandalous; Pro-Football’s use of the marks offended the petitioners and other...
For Sale Signs in Cyberspace: Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 408 Should Be Adapted to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy for Internet Domain Names to Bar Evidence of Offers to Settle from Arbitration Proceedings
R. Jonas Geissler In 1996, Panavision International, L.P., demanded that Dennis Toeppen stop using the domain name panavision.com because it was identical to the Panavision trademarked name. Toeppen replied that he had a right to the domain name, which he had registered with Network Solutions, Incorporated. If your attorney has advised you otherwise, he is trying to screw you. He wants to blaze new trails in the legal frontier at your expense. Why do you want to fund your attorney’s purchase of a new boat (or whatever) when you can facilitate the acquisition of ‘PanaVision.com’ (sic) cheaply and simply instead? This article...
Why Domain Names Are Not Generic: An Analysis of Why Domain Names Incorporating Generic Terms Are Entitled to Trademark Protection
Sarah E. Akhtar As of the date of this paper, none of the previously listed companies have attained federal registration of their service marks. According to the results of a trademark search conducted on December 17, 1999 using Thomson & Thomson, both DRUGSTORE.COM and VITAMINS.COM are the subjects of pending applications in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). PETSTORE.COM had not yet filed an application for registration. However, under new office policies, the USPTO may refuse registration to each company’s “domain name trademark” on the grounds that it is generic. While the USPTO follows traditional trademark law for determining whether any trademark can obtain...
The Trademark Registrability of the Harley- Davidson Roar: A Multimedia Analysis
Michael B. Sapherstein Harley-Davidson’s most recent endeavor to secure trademark protection is not only its most unconventional, it is also arguably, the most unusual and provocative trademark application ever filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). On February 1, 1994, Harley filed a registration for a trademark, then already in use, with the following description: “THE MARK CONSISTS OF THE EXHAUST SOUND OF APPLICANT’S MOTORCYCLES, PRODUCED BY V-TWIN, COMMON CRANKPIN MOTORCYCLE ENGINES WHEN THE GOODS ARE IN USE.” Put simply, Harley was attempting to trademark the sound of its motorcycles; which, of course, begs the question, can a...