FAQ: Questions and Answers

[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 can be protected as a trademark? Answer: You can protect names (such as company names, product names) domain names if they label a product or service images symbols logos slogans or phrases colors product design product packaging (known as trade dress) [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 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 are the limits on dilution? Answer: The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA, 15 U.S.C. 1125) prohibits the commercial use of a famous mark if such use causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark. A mark may be diluted either by "tarnishment" or "blurring." Tarnishment occurs when someone uses a mark on inferior or unwholesome goods or services. For example a court found that a sexually explicit web site using the domain name "candyland.com" diluted by tarnishment the famous trademark "CANDY LAND" owned by Hasbro, Inc. for its board games. Blurring occurs when a famous mark or a mark similar to it is used without permission on other goods and services. The unique and distinctive character of the famous mark to identify one source is weakened by the additional use even though it may not cause confusion to the consumer. The following uses of a famous mark are specifically permitted under the Act: 1) Fair use in comparative advertising to identify the goods or services of the owner of the mark. 2) Noncommercial uses of a mark. 3) All forms of news reporting and news commentary. In addition, the courts have differed as to what constitutes a "famous" mark under the FTDA. In some cases the courts have said that the famousness requirement limits the Act to a very small number of very widely known marks. Other courts, however, have accepted lesser-known marks as PANAVISION, WAWA and EBONY as being famous and yet others have said that merely being famous in one's product line is sufficient. Many states also have antidilution laws protecting mark owners. [back to notice text] Question: Does copyright protect words or short phrases? Answer: No. Names, titles, and short phrases are not subject to copyright protection. These are not deemed to be "original works of authorship" under the Copyright Act. Names may be protected by trademark, in some instances. See the Trademark FAQ for more information. [back to notice text] Question: What is the difference between copyright and trademark? Answer: Copyright protects original expression in literary and artistic works such as plays, books, films, songs, software, performances, etc.). To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be an original creation of the author and not copied from any other source. In the U.S., copyright does not protect facts. Individual words cannot be copyrighted, and there is a gray area of protection for short phrases. Copyright owners have strong rights to prevent copying of their material, subject to the doctrine of "fair use." Copyrights arise when the work is fixed in a permanent form. Infringement consists of copying, publicly distributing, making changes to, or publicly distributing or performing the work without the author's permission. Trademark only protects names and logo images that are used to label goods or services. Trademark does not require originality; its purpose is to identify the source of goods. In the U.S., trademark rights arise only when there is actual use in commerce. Infringement consists of selling goods or services under the same or a confusingly similar name. Trademark has its own types of "fair uses" including use for product comparison and criticism, news reporting, and parody. [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 is this laundry list of things the C&D says will happen if I don't obey? Answer: Your opponent may describe a parade of horribles to demonstrate with exquisite detail what it will do to you unless you capitulate. This list generally includes, but is not limited to: (1) ceasing use of the allegedly infringing mark or surrendering the domain name; (2) rendering an accounting; (3) posting corrective advertising; (4) obtaining an injunction; (5) recovering costs and fees. Though these things sound awful, they are not medieval tortures (although that may be a function of the fact that Torquemada never thought of them). Ceasing use of the mark is self-explanatory: your opponent wants you to stop using the mark. Your opponent might also ask you to surrender your domain name if they believe the domain name causes (or is likely to cause) confusion with their trademark. For example, under ICANN rules (the UDRP), you may have to surrender your domain name if the following three conditions are satisfied: (1) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your opponent?s; (2) you have no legitimate right or interest in the name (in other words, you are not using the name to conduct a bona fide business or for non-commercial fair use purposes); and (3) your name is registered and used in bad faith. An accounting basically means that you disclose the following information to your opponent: (1) the date you began using the allegedly infringing mark; (2) the names of individuals who knew of the use when it began; (3) the amount of traffic at your web site or business at your store; and (4) your profits and revenues during the time you used the allegedly infringing mark. Corrective advertising means you give notice to the public that you were using a mark confusingly similar to your opponent?s, and that you are not affiliated with your opponent. An injunction is a judicial order to do something. An injunction can prevent you from using the allegedly infringing trademark. Some provisions of the Lanham Act permit a trademark holder to recover attorney?s fees and court costs from an infringer. That your opponent has listed these various remedies does not mean that it is entitled to them; do not confuse the smorgasbord of legal options with your opponent?s right to inflict any of them on you.

Topic maintained by Stanford Center for Internet & Society