FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text] Question: What is the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)? Answer: The ACPA [codified as 15 USC 1125(d)] is aimed at people who register a domain name with the intention of taking financial advantage of another's trademark. For instance, if BURGER KING did not have a web site, and you registered www.BURGERKING.com with the intent of selling the site to BURGER KING for a royal ransom, you could be liable under ACPA. ACPA applies to people who: (1) have a bad faith intent to profit from a domain name; and (2) register, use or traffic in a domain name; (3) that is identical, confusingly similar, or dilutive of certain trademarks. The trademark does not have to be registered. ACPA provides that cyberpirates can be fined between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain name for which they are found liable, as well as being forced to transfer the domain name. Somewhat more broadly, the Act is meant to reduce consumers' confusion about the source and sponsorship of Internet web pages. The idea is to provide customers with a measure of reliability, so that when they visit www.burgerking.com, they will be able to find actual Burger King products, not something entirely different. It also protects mark owners from loss of customer goodwill that might occur if others used the trademark to market disreputable goods or services. See the module on ACPA to find out more about bad faith and legitimate defenses. [back to notice text] Question: What is the bare minimum of trademark law that I have to understand to decipher this C&D? Answer: Your opponent should say that your mark is causing consumer confusion or is likely to cause consumer confusion. Or it should mention it's famousness and complain of dilution or tarnishment. (If the C&D does not say this, then no trademark claim may actually exist, and you can rest assured that your opponent is engaging in scare tactics or has hired a highly incompetent attorney). A mark protects more than identical copying, it extends to anything that is confusingly similar, even if it isn't exactly the same. Functioning in a quasi-magical talisman-like capacity, trademarks designate the source or quality of goods or services. For this reason, the law protects against confusion in the market place by ensuring that marks on the same or similar products or services are sufficiently different. The law also protects famous marks against dilution of value and tarnishment of the reputation of the goods or services on which it appears or the source of those products, regardless of any confusion. You can roughly assess the validity of your opponent?s claim of confusion by classifying the marks involved. A trademark can fall into one of 5 categories. It can be: (1) fanciful; (2) arbitrary; (3) suggestive; (4) descriptive; or (5) generic. Not all of these varieties of marks are entitled to the same level, or indeed any level, of trademark protection. A fanciful mark is a mark someone made up; examples include KODAK or H?AGEN-DAZS. An arbitrary mark is a known term applied to a completely unrelated product or service; for instance, AMAZON.com for an online book-store cum one-stop shopping site or APPLE for computers. Fanciful and arbitrary marks are considered strong marks and garner substantial trademark protection. A suggestive mark is one that hints at the product, but which requires an act of imagination to make the connection: COPPERTONE for sun tan lotion or PENGUIN for coolers or refrigerators are examples. Suggestive marks are also strong marks and receive protection. A descriptive mark, predictably, describes the product: HOLIDAY INN describes a vacation hotel and FISH-FRI describes batter for frying fish. Descriptive marks do not receive any trademark protection unless their user has used them in commerce and has built up secondary meaning. "Secondary meaning" occurs when consumers identify the goods or services on which the descriptive term appears with a single source. In other words, if consumers know that HOLIDAY INN hotels are all affiliated with a single source, then the mark has secondary meaning and receives trademark protection. Finally, generic marks simply designate the variety of goods involved: for example, "cola" used on soft drinks and "perfume" on perfume are both generic terms. Generic marks never receive any trademark protection; they are free for everybody to use. (Keep in mind, though, that "Cola" on a nightclub is arbitrary, and therefore receives protection). If your opponent is complaining that you have used the word "bakery" for a bake shop or "car" for a car repair shop, then you can safely guess that the c & d is baseless. On the other hand, if your opponent is concerned about the fact that both of you use of the term "Sweet Pickles" on alpaca sweaters, then the c & d may have some merit. There are a few more wrinkles as well. Some marks are word marks (text only) and others are design marks (images which may or may not include text). Design marks do not provide independent protectin for the text incorporated in the design. So if the mark is only a design mark, it doesn't prevent others from using the text so long as they don't copy the design elements. [back to notice text] Question: What is the difference between a trademark and a service mark? Answer: Trademarks refer to goods and products, that is, physical commodities which may be natural or manufactured or produced, and which are sold or otherwise transported or distributed. Service marks refer to intangible activities which are performed by one person for the benefit of a person or persons other than himself, either for pay or otherwise. Because the legal rights are essentially the same, the term "trademark" is frequently used to refer to both types of marks. To learn about other types of marks, see Chapter 100 of the USPTO's Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure. To tell whether something is a good or a service, see 37 C.F.R. ?6.1. [back to notice text] Question: What civil and criminal liabilities may be imposed for trademark infringement? Answer: Under federal law (Lanham Act Section 32), an infringer shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for certain remedies provided in the Act. One such remedy is an injunction, where a court orders a person who was found to violate the Act to stop its infringing activities. A trademark owner/registrant may also be able to obtain lost profits or damages against a defendant in a civil action only if the acts were committed with knowledge that such imitation was intended to be used to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive. The trademark owner can recover (1) the domain holder's profits from use of the mark, (2) the trademark owner's damages resulting from harm to the value of mark, and (3) court costs as "actual damages." In determining the award to be paid, the court can choose to award up to three times the amount of actual damages. Instead of having to prove the amount of "actual" damages suffered as above, the mark owner can instead request payment of "statutory damages" from $1000 and $100,000 per domain name. Attorney fees may be awarded in exceptional circumstances, such as when there was a willful and malicious violation. The court can order the cancellation or transfer of a domain registration. In the case of a willful violation of Lanham Act section 43, a court may order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements in the possession of a defendant bearing the registered trademark shall be delivered up and destroyed. [back to notice text] Question: What constitutes "bad faith" use of a domain name? Answer: The ACPA instructs the courts to consider a number of factors to determine the presence of bad faith. These are enumerated in the paragraphs below, but many involve new concepts that are rather vaguely defined. It may take some time before courts decide exactly how these new terms should be interpreted. A court is likely to decide that a domain name registrant acquired or used the name in bad faith if s/he sought to divert customers from a trademark owner's website to another that, either for purposes of commercial gain or to tarnish the mark, could harm the goodwill represented by the mark. "Goodwill" is a legal term indicating the valuable relationship or familiarity that exists between businesses and their customers and is often embodied in their trademark symbols. It can be harmed if the domain name is likely to cause confusion about what organization created or sponsored a website. Bad faith from attempted commercial gain can arise if a domain name holder steals customers because the name is so similar to a trademark. For example, a shoe retailer might hold www.reabok.com, hoping to steal shoe buyers from customers looking for Reebok shoes. Bad faith from tarnishing can arise if a domain name similar to a trademark leads web surfers to a site, such as a pornographic website, that tends to harm the "good name" of the trademark owner. Or a pornographic website at www.reabok.com could create an unwholesome association that Reebok would like to avoid. (Although, Reebok may be considered a famous mark?see below for more). A court will almost certainly find bad faith if the domain name holder attempts to sell the domain name for financial gain to either the trademark owner or someone else, without having used it or without intending to use it. A court is likely to find bad faith if the name holder provides false or misleading identification information when applying for registration, or if the holder fails to accurately update this information. A court will also frown upon a prior history of such behavior. A court is likely to find bad faith if the person registers a number of names identical or similar to trademarks. [back to notice text] Question: What implication does alleged confusion have on claims of trademark infringement? Answer: A mark that is confusingly similar so closely resembles a registered trademark that it is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the product or service. Consumers could be likely to believe that the product with the confusingly similar mark is produced by the organization that holds the registered mark. Someone who holds a confusingly similar mark benefits from the good will associated with the registered mark and can lure customers to his/her product or service instead. Infringement is determined by whether your mark is confusingly similar to a registered mark. The factors that determine infringement include: proof of actual confusion strength of the established mark proximity of the goods in the marketplace similarity of the marks? sound appearance and meaning how the goods are marketed type of product and how discerning the customer is intent behind selecting the mark likelihood of expansion in the market of the goods [back to notice text] Question: How do I know which marks are famous and what difference does it make? Answer: Owners of "famous" marks have special privileges. They can block new uses of any similar name even if consumers wouldn't be confused by it. They are protected against "dilution" and "tarnishment" as well. If you walk up to someone on the street and ask someone if they recognize the word or symbol, and they recognize it right away, it is probably famous. If you have to remind them ("The Berkman Center is this crazy thing at Harvard?"), then it is probably not. Whether or not a particular mark is actually famous (or distinctive) is a question for the court. A mark owner who claims to be famous may have an exaggerated belief of the mark's importance. [back to notice text] Question: What is trademark dilution? Answer: A type of infringement of a famous trademark in which the defendant's use, while not causing a likelihood of confusion, tarnishes the image or blurs the distintiveness of the plaintiff's mark. For example, if someone tries to sell "KODAK" pianos, KODAK could stop the person--even if consumers were not confused--because "KODAK" is a famous mark, and its use on products other than film and film-printing accessories (or other products on which Eastman Kodak places the mark) dilutes its uniqueness. Many states have anti-dilution laws. The federal government only recently enacted anti-dilution legislation; see the Federal Trademark Dilution Act at 15 USC 1125(c). [back to notice text] Question: What are the limits of trademark rights? Answer: There are many limits, including: Fair Use There are two situations where the doctrine of fair use prevents infringement: The term is a way to describe another good or service, using its descriptive term and not its secondary meaning. The idea behind this fair use is that a trademark holder does not have the exclusive right to use a word that is merely descriptive, since this decreases the words available to describe. If the term is not used to label any particular goods or services at all, but is perhaps used in a literary fashion as part of a narrative, then this is a non-commercial use even if the narrative is commercially sold. Nominative fair use This is when a potential infringer (or defendant) uses the registered trademark to identify the registrant?s product or service in conjunction with his or her own. To invoke this defense, the defendant must prove the following elements: his/her product or service cannot be readily identified without pointing to the registrant?s mark he/she only uses as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the goods or services he/she does nothing with the mark to suggest that the registrant has given his approval to the defendant Parody Use Parodies of trademarked products have traditionally been permitted in print and other media publications. A parody must convey two simultaneous -- and contradictory -- messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. Non-commercial Use If no income is solicited or earned by using someone else's mark, this use is not normally infringement. Trademark rights protect consumers from purchasing inferior goods because of false labeling. If no goods or services are being offered, or the goods would not be confused with those of the mark owner, or if the term is being used in a literary sense, but not to label or otherwise identify the origin of other goods or services, then the term is not being used commercially. Product Comparison and News Reporting Even in a commercial use, you can refer to someone else?s goods by their trademarked name when comparing them to other products. News reporting is also exempt. Geographic Limitations A trademark is protected only within the geographic area where the mark is used and its reputation is established. For federally registered marks, protection is nationwide. For other marks, geographical use must be considered. For example, if John Doe owns the mark Timothy?s Bakery in Boston, there is not likely to be any infringement if Jane Roe uses Timothy?s Bakery to describe a bakery in Los Angeles. They don't sell to the same customers, so those customers aren't confused. Non-competing or Non-confusing Use Trademark rights only protect the particular type of goods and services that the mark owner is selling under the trademark. Some rights to expansion into related product lines have been recognized, but generally, if you are selling goods or services that do not remotely compete with those of the mark owner, this is generally strong evidence that consumers would not be confused and that no infringement exists. This defense may not exist if the mark is a famous one, however. In dilution cases, confusion is not the standard, so use on any type of good or service might cause infringement by dilution of a famous mark. [back to notice text] Question: I have an unsettling feeling in the pit of my stomach about the tone of the C&D I received. Does the tone of the c & d mean I am going to lose this dispute? Answer: "Gorilla Chest Thumping" refers to the tone of most C&Ds: it?s nasty. The first thing to do is take a deep breath. The second thing to do is to acknowledge that the tone of the letter is a function of the letter writer?s perception that aggression is the best defense: do not take it personally. The third thing to do is ignore the tone and focus on the facts. You may eventually choose to respond aggressively yourself, but do not do so because your opponent has egged you into a useless game of whose gorilla is bigger. Take a tip from Ani Di Franco: "If you play their game, girl, you?re never gonna win." Face Up and Sing, Out of Range, Righteous Babe Records (1994).

Topic maintained by Berkman Center for Internet & Society