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 is a famous mark? Answer: A famous mark is a mark that has become so well known, that it has become almost universally recognized. An example of such a mark would be "McDonald's" or "Coca-Cola." Famous marks become important where an owner of a trademark is claiming trademark dilution against a defendant. The Federal Anti-Dilution Act of 1996 provides that an owner of a famous mark is entitled to an injunction where a defendant's use of the mark causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the owner's famous mark. In determining whether a mark is famous, a court will consider a list of eight factors, found in the 1996 Federal Anti-Dilution Act. [back to notice text] Question: What is trademark infringement? Answer: Although different courts have different tests, the central concept is confusion in the marketplace. The law protects against consumer confusion by ensuring that the marks on the same or similar products or services are sufficiently different. A plaintiff in a trademark infringement case generally must prove 1) it possesses a valid mark; 2) that the defendant used the mark; 3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce, "in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising "of goods and services; and 4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers. [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 is trademark infringement? Answer: Although different courts have different tests, the central concept is confusion in the marketplace. The law protects against consumer confusion by ensuring that the marks on the same or similar products or services are sufficiently different. A plaintiff in a trademark infringement case generally must prove 1) it possesses a valid mark; 2) that the defendant used the mark; 3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce, "in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising "of goods and services; and 4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers. [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 is false designation of origin? Answer: It covers similar ground to trademark infringement, but is more specific to misrepresentation of source, and applies even when there is no trademark at issue. If your website makes it appear that you sell products made by Company X, but in fact you make these products in your garage, Company X might accuse you of falsely designating the origin of (or "passing off") your items. [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: How does the ACPA apply to domain names? Answer: It makes it illegal to register, "traffic in" or use a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous mark (or which dilutes a famous mark). [back to notice text] Question: What constitutes a violation of the Act? Answer: In addition to having a domain name that steps on the toes of an existing trademark as mentioned above, a person will be held liable only if he or she has a "bad faith intent to profit from the mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark." An example of a personal name that is protected as a mark would be the name of a Hollywood celebrity whose name is used as a trademark to identify his or her performance services. [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: Is it possible to hold a domain name in good faith even if it is identical or confusingly similar to another's trademark? Answer: The ACPA is forgiving of legitimate uses of domain names. There is less likely to be a violation of the Act if the domain name holder actually has some intellectual property rights in the name, or if the person has previously used the domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services. Operating a domain name to which you have fairly entrenched trademark rights, or having operated a sales website under the domain name for a long time, is somewhat safer. Take note, however, that this safety is illusory if your domain name resembles (or is) a famous mark. Thus an Internet service provider, Virtual Works, lost a case to Volkswagen, over its domain name www.vw.net, because the "VW" mark is famous, even though VW is the abbreviation of Virtual Works, and even though they had operated the site for several years. If your domain name is your own name, or a name by which you are often referred, this is more likely to be deemed a good faith use. Edwin Von Aschenbach will probably be safe in registering www.vonaschenbach.com, even if Von Aschenbach, Co., manufactures high quality desks and "Von Aschenbach" is a trademark in the sale of desks. Edwin Pepsy should be more careful. [back to notice text] Question: How does a mark owner use the ACPA against cybersquatters? Answer: The ACPA creates a private right of action for trademark owners. This means that the owner of a trademark can sue the holder of a confusingly similar domain name. The suit must be brought in Federal Court - in a U.S. District Court. To summarize what has been said above ? the mark owner must establish two elements to win a case against a cybersquatter. First, s/he must establish that the squatter has a domain name that is identical to or confusingly similar to your distinctive or famous trademark, or dilutes your famous trademark. Second, s/he must establish bad faith as discussed above. [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: How does a mark owner use the ACPA against cybersquatters? Answer: The ACPA creates a private right of action for trademark owners. This means that the owner of a trademark can sue the holder of a confusingly similar domain name. The suit must be brought in Federal Court - in a U.S. District Court. To summarize what has been said above ? the mark owner must establish two elements to win a case against a cybersquatter. First, s/he must establish that the squatter has a domain name that is identical to or confusingly similar to your distinctive or famous trademark, or dilutes your famous trademark. Second, s/he must establish bad faith as discussed above. [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. [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: Does the First Amendment protect online speech? Answer: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Under the First Amendment and cases interpreting it, the federal government (and states, under the Fourteenth Amendment) must meet a high level of scrutiny before restricting any kind of speech. In the first Supreme Court case dealing with the Internet, Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court affirmed that online speech deserves as much protection as off-line speech. [back to notice text] Question: Does it make any difference if I am commenting on a product or company rather than a person? Answer: Product disparagement law prohibits certain false claims about another's goods or services. While a defamatory statement harms the reputation and character of a person or corporation, a product disparaging statement harms the marketability of the goods being disparaged. Product disparagement is typically harder to prove. [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. [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.

Topic maintained by Berkman Center for Internet & Society