Top Banner
Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction
18

Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Dec 19, 2015

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Trademark and Unfair Comp.

Boston College Law School

January 14, 2009

Introduction

Page 2: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Topics

• Case: Quality Inns v. McDonalds• Theories for Protection• Context

– Brief History of Trademark– Sources of Law– Institutional Structure

• Course Roadmap• Administrative Details

Page 3: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Quality Inns v. McDonald’s(695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988)

Page 4: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Quality Inns v. McDonald’s(695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988)

Page 5: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Quality Inns v. McDonald’s(695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988)

Page 6: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Why Protect Trademarks?

1. Protect consumers from confusion

2. Provide incentives for investing in quality

3. Prevent other companies from free-riding

4. Reward companies for their labor

5. Protect value of trademark (and associated goodwill) as a good in itself

Page 7: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Costs of Trademark Protection

1. May raise costs of competition

2. May hurt consumers

3. May harm free speech interests

Page 8: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Competing Visions of Brands

• The case for– Provides information to consumers– Ensures quality of product– Creates valuable associations consumers want

• The case against– Creates artificial distinctions, raising prices– Encourages unhealthy wants & desires– No need for additional legal protection

Page 9: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Trademark Law - Context

• Historical Context

• Sources of Trademark Law

• Institutional Framework

• Comparison With Other I.P.

Page 10: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

History - Early MarksPottery Stamps

Crete

c. 2000 B.C.

Brick Stamps

Rome

c. 10 B.C.

Paper Watermarks

Europe

c. 13th century

Silversmith Marks

U.S.

c. 18-19th century

Page 11: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

History - Early Purposes

• Form of advertising

• Used to prove source of goods

• Guarantee of quality

Page 12: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

History - U.S. Trademark Act• Pre-1870: state common law protection• 1870: first federal trademark act

– Based on Copyright and Patent Clause– Struck down in Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879)

• 1881: new federal trademark statute– Based on Commerce Clause– Upheld as valid exercise of commerce power

• 1946: Lanham Act• 1996: Anti-Dilution Act

Page 13: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

History - I.P. Clause

• U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8: Congress shall have the power:– “to promote the Progress of Science and useful

Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Page 14: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Sources of Trademark Law

• State Common Law and Statutes– State law not preempted (unlike copyright/pat.)– Can register trademarks in each state

• Federal Protection Under Lanham Act– Provides process for registering marks federally– Provides protection for registered marks– Also provides protection for unregistered marks

Page 15: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Institutional Framework• Patent and Trademark Office

– Registers trademarks– Adjudicates trademark registration disputes (T.T.A.B.)

• Appeals from registration denials• Opposition or cancellation proceedings

• Federal Courts– Appeals from trademark registration adjudication– Infringement actions under Lanham Act

• State Courts– Infringement actions under state and federal law

Page 16: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Comparison with Other I.P.Copyright Patent Trademark

SubjectMatter

Creative works(books, music, movies,software, etc.)

Innovation(inventions, processes,methods, etc.)

Product identifiers(names, logos,slogans, etc.)

Length ofProtection

Life + 70 years 20 years from filing As long as used

Requirementsfor Protection

Originality andfixation

Novelty, nonobvious-ness, utility; pre-approval process

Distinctive-ness, use incommerce

Scope No copying, publicperformance, publicdisplay, derivativeworks

No use, sale, creation,manufacture;independent discoverynot a defense

No likelihood ofconfusion, dilutionof famous marks

Page 17: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Contact Information

• Office Hours– Location: East Wing, 313– Hours: Mon. 1:30-3 p.m., or by appointment

• E-Mail– [email protected]

• Phone– 617-552-6377

Page 18: Trademark and Unfair Comp. Boston College Law School January 14, 2009 Introduction.

Assignment for Next Class

• Read II.A & B – Subject Matter– Types of Marks– Distinctiveness