FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text] Question: What exactly are the rights a trademark owner has? Answer: In the US, trademark rights come from actual use of the mark to label one's services or products or they come from filing an application with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that states an intention to use the mark in future commerce. In most foreign countries, trademarks are valid only upon registration. There are two trademark rights: the right to use (or authorize use) and the right to register. The person who establishes priority rights in a mark gains the exclusive right to use it to label or identify their goods or services, and to authorize others to do so. According to the Lanham Act, determining who has priority rights in a mark involves establishing who was the first to use it to identify his/her goods. The PTO determines who has the right to register the mark. Someone who registers a trademark with the intent to use it gains "constructive use" when he/she begins using it, which entitles him/her to nationwide priority in the mark. However, if two users claim ownership of the same mark (or similar marks) at the same time, and neither has registered it, a court must decide who has the right to the mark. The court can issue an injunction (a ruling that requires other people to stop using the mark) or award damages if people other than the owner use the trademark (infringement). Trademark owners do not acquire the exclusive ownership of words. They only obtain the right to use the mark in commerce and to prevent competitors in the same line of goods or services from using a confusingly similar mark. The same word can therefore be trademarked by different producers to label different kinds of goods. Examples are Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets. Owners of famous marks have broader rights to use their marks than do owners of less-well-known marks. They can prevent uses of their marks by others on goods that do not even compete with the famous product. [back to notice text] Question: What facts should a C&D include? Answer: Recitation of Facts. Read this section of the letter carefully. It should contain some or all of the following information: (1) the trademark that is allegedly being infringed; (2) the trademark, domain name or other use that is allegedly doing the infringing; (3) the products and services on which your opponent uses the allegedly infringed mark; (4) the date your opponent commenced such use; and (5) the registration numbers, if the trademarks are registered with the Patent & Trademark Office. [back to notice text] Question: I registered the domain first. Why can't I keep it? Answer: Maybe you can. The ACPA only protects trademark owners against cybersquatters. If your registration or use doesn't violate the Act, you should be able to keep the domain. However, being the first to register a name doesn't give you special rights or protections if you violate the law. Just as in physical space, you cannot use another's trademark to your own commercial advantage if the result is to "steal" the value of the trademark's goodwill and turn it to your own advantage. Read the remaining FAQs that explain what the ACPA actually forbids. [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 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: What is a trade name? Answer: Answer: A trade name is the actual name of the company. It may or may not also be a trademark. Trademarks are used to label specific goods or services; trade names identify the organization itself. For example, "Ford Motor Company" is a trade name as well as a trademark. "Bronco" is a trademark only. In those cases, if the trade name is registered as a domain name, the name owner is protected against cyber-squatting under traditional trademark provisions and also under the newer Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of ICANN. If a trade name is not used as a trademark, it may still be protected under other kinds of laws (having different criteria and remedies), such as unfair competition. However, if the trade name is registered as domain name, the owner will not be protected against cyber-squatting under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) or the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of ICANN since they both apply only 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: What defenses are there to trademark infringement or dilution? Answer: Defendants in a trademark infringement or dilution claim can assert basically two types of affirmative defense: fair use or parody. Fair use occurs when a descriptive mark is used in good faith for its primary, rather than secondary (trademark), meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to result. So, for example, a cereal manufacturer may be able to describe its cereal as consisting of "all bran," without infringing upon Kelloggs' rights in the mark "All Bran." Such a use is purely descriptive, and does not invoke the secondary meaning of the mark. Similarly, in one case, a court held that the defendant's use of "fish fry" to describe a batter coating for fish was fair use and did not infringe upon the plaintiff's mark "Fish-Fri." Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983). Such uses are privileged because they use the terms only in their purely descriptive sense. Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer's product, not the user's own product. For example, in a recent case, the newspaper USA Today ran a telephone poll, asking its readers to vote for their favorite member of the music group New Kids on the Block. The New Kids on the Block sued USA Today for trademark infringement. The court held that the use of the trademark "New Kids on the Block" was a privileged nominative use because: (1) the group was not readily identifiable without using the mark; (2) USA Today used only so much of the mark as reasonably necessary to identify it; and (3) there was no suggestion of endorsement or sponsorship by the group. The basic idea is that use of a trademark is sometimes necessary to identify and talk about another party's products and services. When the above conditions are met, such a use will be privileged. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, certain parodies of or using trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis. For example, some courts have applied the general "likelihood of confusion" analysis, using the First Amendment as a factor in the analysis. Other courts have expressly balanced First Amendment considerations against the degree of likely confusion. Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark. So, for example, a risqu? parody of an L.L. Bean magazine advertisement (L.L. Beam's "Back to School Sex Catalog") was found not to constitute infringement. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1987). Similarly, the use of a pig-like character named "Spa'am" in a Muppet movie was found not to violate Hormel's rights in the trademark "Spam." Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996). On the other hand, "Gucchie Goo" diaper bags were found not to be protected under the parody defense, Gucci Shops, Inc. v. R.H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Similarly, posters bearing the logo "Enjoy Cocaine" were found to violate the rights of Coca-Cola in the slogan "Enjoy Coca-Cola", Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). In short -- although the courts recognize a parody defense, the precise contours of that defense are difficult to outline with any precision. [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 about noncommercial uses? Answer: According to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, "the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 ("FTDA") and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 ("ACPA"), Congress left little doubt that it did not intend for trademark laws to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators. The dilution statute applies to only a 'commercial use in commerce of a mark,' 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(c)(1), and explicitly states that the '[n]oncommercial use of a mark' is not actionable. Id. ? 1125(c)(4)....Congress directed that in determining whether an individual has engaged in cybersquatting, the courts may consider whether the person?s use of the mark is a 'bona fide noncommercial or fair use.' 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(IV)" One should be careful in this area, however. Sites that parody the mark holder or its website have been found not to be a good faith use by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit noted that despite the existence of a fairly obvious parody on the challenged website, confusion could arise because the domain name could appear separately from the website content or where the parody isn't clear on its face. Moreover, the meaning of "noncommercial" use can be interpreted in a fairly narrow manner by some courts. The 4th Circuit, for example, in Lamparello v. Falwell, leaves open the issue of whether merely using the name in the stream of commerce (whether or not it is being used to generate revenue) might be enough to qualify as commercial use. Other courts have held that an ability to use the site to access, directly or indirectly, a website that is selling something, has been held to constitute a commercial use. [back to notice text] Question: What does "traffics in" mean? Answer: According to the ACPA, it refers to "transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency," and any other transfer for payment. In other words, any transaction involving the domain name that generates value for the cybersquatter. [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: Where can I find the text of the ACPA? Answer: The Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act as enacted may be found at http://www.mama-tech.com/1948.html. Most of the ACPA provisions are now found in the Lanham Act at 15 USC 1125(d), 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1117. [back to notice text] Question: What are the possible penalties for violating the ACPA? Answer: Normally, the domain name holder will not evaporate, and can be sued directly. In such a case, the court can order the cancellation or transfer of the domain registration, as well as require the payment of money damages to the plaintiff trademark owner. 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. Attorney fees may be awarded in exceptional circumstances, such as when there was a willful and malicious violation. 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.

Topic maintained by Berkman Center for Internet & Society