Trademark Law Outline - Amazon S3 · Trademark, Bone 2015 6 Outline 1. Does P have rights in a valid mark? a. No per se exclusions? b. Distinctive i. Word marks: Abercrombie test

P r o f e s s o r B o b B o n e

Trademark Law Outline Alexandra Fulcher

Spring 15

Trademark, Bone 2015

2

Table of Contents

Outline _____________________________________________________________________ 6

Relevant Tests _______________________________________________________________ 7 Distinctiveness Tests ________________________________________________________________________________________ 7

Abercrombie Test for Word Marks ______________________________________________________________________ 7 Seabrook Test for Logos _________________________________________________________________________________ 8 Wal-Mart Test for Trade Dress __________________________________________________________________________ 8

Use and Priority _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 Abandonment by non-use _______________________________________________________________________________ 9 Abandonment by Failure to Control Use ("Naked Licensing") ________________________________________ 9

Ownership ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 Surrogate Use _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 Assignments in Gross ___________________________________________________________________________________ 10

Functionality ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 Competitive Necessity Test/Morton-Norwich Factors _______________________________________________ 11

Registration Bars ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 Test for Deceptive Marks _______________________________________________________________________________ 12

Territoriality and International Marks ___________________________________________________________________ 12 Bone's Test for Geographic Marks: _____________________________________________________________________ 12

How much good will is needed for the well-known mark to apply? ___________________________________ 12 Infringement of TM Rights _________________________________________________________________________________ 12

Likelihood of Confusion Factors: _______________________________________________________________________ 12 6 Factors to Determine Blurring _______________________________________________________________________ 13

Affirmative Defenses _______________________________________________________________________________________ 13 Descriptive Fair Use 33(b)(4) requirements __________________________________________________________ 13 NKTB Nominative Fair Use Factors ____________________________________________________________________ 13 Parody/First Amendment: Rogers v. Grimaldi Balancing test ________________________________________ 13

A Policy Framework __________________________________________________________ 14 Overview of Core Policies __________________________________________________________________________________ 14

Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf (SCOTUS 1916) ___________________________________________________________ 14 Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty (SCOTUS 1924) _______________________________________________________________________ 14 International News Service v. Associated Press (SCOTUS 1918) ______________________________________________ 14

Creation of TM Rights ________________________________________________________ 16 Distinctiveness _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 16

Basics _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1976) _______________________________________________ 16 In re Oppedahl & Larson, LLP (Fed. Cir. 2004) _________________________________________________________________ 17

Descriptiveness and Secondary Meaning ______________________________________________________________ 17 Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc (5th Cir. 1983) _________________________________________________ 17

Genericity ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 18 Filipino Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Asian Journal Pubs., Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) _________________________________________ 18 Mil-Mar Shoe Co, Inc. v. Shonac Corp. (7th Cir. 1996) __________________________________________________________ 18 Haughton Elevator Co. v. Seeberger (1950) ____________________________________________________________________ 18 Murphy Door Bed Co., Inc. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1989) _____________________________________ 18 Blinded Veterans Association v. Blinded American Veterans Foundation (D.C. Cir. 1989) ___________________ 18

Distinctiveness of Non-Verbal Marks __________________________________________________________________ 19 Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage (5th Cir. 2010) ____________________________________________________ 19


3

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc (SCOTUS 1992) ___________________________________________________________ 19 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. (SCOTUS 1995) ____________________________________________________ 20 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. (SCOUTS 2000) ________________________________________________ 20

The TM/Copyright Divide ______________________________________________________________________________ 21 In re Clarke (TTAB 1990) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 21 Oliveira v. Frito-Lay, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2001) ________________________________________________________________________ 21 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (SCOTUS 2003) ___________________________________________ 21 Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc. v. Strabala (7th Cir. 2014) ________________________________________________________ 21

Use ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 22 Actual Use ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 22

Aycock Engineering v. Airflite (Fed. Cir. 2009) _________________________________________________________________ 22 Planetary Motion v. Techsplosion (11th Cir. 2001) ____________________________________________________________ 22 Chance v. Pac-Tel (9th Cir. 2001) ________________________________________________________________________________ 22

Constructive Use ________________________________________________________________________________________ 24 WarnerVision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire of Carolina, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1996) _________________________________ 24 In re Rath (Fed. Cir. 2005) _______________________________________________________________________________________ 24

Surrogate Use by Affiliates _____________________________________________________________________________ 25 Coco-Cola Co. v. Busch (E.D. Pa. 1942) __________________________________________________________________________ 25

Loss of Rights through Non-Use or Uncontrolled Use ________________________________________________ 25 Emergency One, Inc. v. American Fireeagle, Ltd (4th Cir. 2000) ______________________________________________ 25 Stanfield v. Osborne Industries (10th Cir. 1995) _______________________________________________________________ 26 University Bookstore v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents (TTAB 1994) _____________________________ 26 Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan (5th Cir. 1999) __________________________________________________________________ 27 E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Company (9th Cir. 1992) __________________________________________________ 27

Functionality ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 28 Development and Overview of the Functionality Doctrine __________________________________________ 28

In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc. (CCPA 1982) _____________________________________________________________ 28 Wallace Int’l Silversmith, Inc. v. Godinger Silver Art Co., Inc. (2nd Cir. 1990) _________________________________ 28 Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 1994) _______________________________________________________ 28 Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (SCOTUS 1938) _____________________________________________________________ 29 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., Inc. (SCOUTS 1995) _______________________________________________________ 29

The Modern Approach to Functionality: TrafFix Devices _____________________________________________ 30 TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (SCOUTS 2001) ______________________________________________ 30

Post-TrafFix Applications _______________________________________________________________________________ 30 Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2002) _______________________________________________________ 30 Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH (5th Cir. 2002) ______________________________________________ 30 Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Franek (7th Cir. 2010) _______________________________________________________________ 30 In re Becton, Dickinson and Company (Fed. Cir. 2012) ________________________________________________________ 30 Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (6th Cir. 2002) ___________________________ 31 ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH v. Canady Technology LLC (Fed. Cir. 2010) _____________________________________ 31 Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2012) _________________________________ 32 Au-tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2006) _________________________________________ 32

Registration _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 33 The Registration Process _______________________________________________________________________________ 33 Post-Registration Actions _______________________________________________________________________________ 35 Registration Requirements/Exclusions _______________________________________________________________ 37

Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. (TTAB 2014) __________________________________________________________________ 37 Deceptive v. Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks _________________________________________________________________ 38


4

In re Budge Mfg. Co., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1988) ______________________________________________________________________ 38 Geographic Marks _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 38 Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc. (6th Cir. 1989) ________________________________ 38 In re California Innovations, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2003) ______________________________________________________________ 39 Personal Name Marks ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 39 Peaceable Planet, Inc. v. TY, Inc. (7th Cir. 2004) ________________________________________________________________ 39 In re United Distillers, PLC (TTAB 2000) _______________________________________________________________________ 39 In re Sauer (TTAB 1993) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 39

Incontestability Benefits ________________________________________________________________________________ 40 Park’n Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. (SCOTUS 1985) ______________________________________________________ 40

Geographic Scope Benefits _____________________________________________________________________________ 40 Tea Rose Doctrine (Hanover Star and United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. (SCOTUS 1918) __________ 40 Dawn Donut Co., Inc. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1959) _______________________________________________ 41 National Ass’n for Healthcare Communications, Inc. v. Central Arkansas Area Agency on Aging, Inc. (8th Cir. 2001) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 41 Dorpan S.L. v. Hotel Melia, Inc. (1st Cir. 2013) __________________________________________________________________ 41

The Territorial Nature of U.S. TM Rights _________________________________________________________________ 42 Person’s Co., LTD v. Christman (Fed. Cir. 1990) ________________________________________________________________ 42 Grupo Gigante v. Dallo & Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) _______________________________________________________________ 42 ITC Limited v. Punchgini, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2007) ___________________________________________________________________ 43 SBM (International Bancorp, LLC. V. Societe des Bains de mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monoco) (4th Cir. 2003) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 43

Infringement of TM Rights _____________________________________________________ 44 Confusion-Based Theories _________________________________________________________________________________ 44

Actionable “Use” Requirement _________________________________________________________________________ 44 Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservations, Inc. (6th Cir. 1996) _____________________________________________________ 44 Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2009) _________________________________________________________________ 44

Likelihood of Confusion Test ___________________________________________________________________________ 44 Virgin Enterprises Ltd. V. Nawab (2nd Cir. 2003) _______________________________________________________________ 44 McDonald's Corp. v. Druck and Gerner, D.D.S., P.C., d/b/a McDental (NDNY 1993) __________________________ 45 Libman Company v. Vining Industries, Inc. (7th Cir. 1995) _____________________________________________________ 45 Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (7th Cir. 2013) ____________________ 45

Applying the Multi-Factor LoC Test to Special Situations ____________________________________________ 45 Boston Professional Hockey Association, Inc. v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc. (5th Cir. 1975) _____________ 45

Confusion Away from the Point of Sale ________________________________________________________________ 47 Ferrari S.P.A. Esercizio v. Roberts (6th Cir. 1991) _______________________________________________________________ 47 Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP (6th Cir. 2005) ____________________________________________ 48 Reverse Confusion ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 48 A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc. (3rd Cir. 2000) __________________________________________ 48

Indirect and Vicarious Liability ________________________________________________________________________ 48 Non-Confusion-Based Theories ___________________________________________________________________________ 49

Dilution Protection (43©) ______________________________________________________________________________ 49 Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Division of Travel Development (4th Cir. 1999) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 49

Forms of Dilution ________________________________________________________________________________________ 49 Tarnishment _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 49 Toys R US Cases __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 50 V-Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley (6th Cir. 2010) _____________________________________________________________ 50


5

Blurring __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 50 Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2013) ________________________________________________ 50 Visa Int’l Service Assoc. v. JSL Corp. (9th Cir. 2010) _____________________________________________________________ 51

Protection Against Cybersquatting ____________________________________________________________________ 52 Panavision International v. Toeppen (9th Cir. 1998) ___________________________________________________________ 52 DSPT Int’l, Inc. v. Nahum (9th Cir. 2010) ________________________________________________________________________ 53 Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc. (4th Cir. 2011) ______________________________________ 53 Lamparello v. Falwell (4th Cir. 2005) ___________________________________________________________________________ 53 Microsoft Corp. v. Shah (WD Wash. 2011) ______________________________________________________________________ 53 Harrods LTD. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names (4th Cir. 2002) _________________________________________________ 53

Defenses – Permissible Uses of TMs _____________________________________________ 54 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 54 Fair Use _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 55

Descriptive Fair Use _____________________________________________________________________________________ 55 KP Permanent Make-up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. (SCOTUS 2004) ___________________________________ 55 Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) __________________ 56 Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey (2nd Cir. 2013) _________________________________________________________________________ 57

Nominative Fair Use ____________________________________________________________________________________ 58 R. G. Smith v. Chanel, Inc. (9th Cir. 1968) ________________________________________________________________________ 58 Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Lendingtree, Inc. (3rd Cir. 2005) ______________________________________________ 58 Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari (9th Cir. 2010) _______________________________________________________ 59

First Sale ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 60 Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders (SCOTUS 1947) __________________________________________________________ 61 Nitro Leisure Products, L.L.C. v. Acushnet Co. (Fed. Cir. 2003) _________________________________________________ 61 Gamut Trading Co. v. U.S.I.T.C. (Fed. Cir. 1999) ________________________________________________________________ 62

Parody and First Amendment _____________________________________________________________________________ 63 S.F. Arts & Athletics v. US Olympic Committee (SCOTUS 1987) ________________________________________________ 63 Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak (8th Cir. 1987) ______________________________________________________________ 63 Rogers v. Grimaldi (2nd Cir. 1989) _______________________________________________________________________________ 63 Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Den Pub. Group, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1989) __________________________________ 63 Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp. v. Pacific Graphics, Inc. (WD Wash 1991) ___________________________________ 64 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications (8th Cir. 1994) _________________________________________________ 64 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) ________________________________________________________________ 64 University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art, Inc. (11th Cir. 2012) _______________________________ 64 American Dairy Queen Corp. v. New Line Productions, Inc. ____________________________________________________ 65 Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) ___________________________________________________________________ 66 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (4th Cir. 2007) ________________________________________ 66 Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. (4th Cir. 2012) ________________________________________________________________ 66


6

Outline 1. Does P have rights in a valid mark?

a. No per se exclusions? b. Distinctive

i. Word marks: Abercrombie test ii. Logo: Seabrook, sometimes Abercrombie

iii. Trade Dress: design v. packaging Wal-Mart iv. Genericity

c. Use and Priority i. Actual Use

1. Registration 2. §43(a)

ii. Constructive Use 1. §1(b) Intent to Use

d. Not abandoned (affirmative defense) i. Nonuse

ii. Naked licensing e. P Owns

i. Group ownership (brand names) ii. Assignment in gross

f. Not legally functional i. Also applies to trade dress

ii. TrafFix Devices and flowchart g. Registration effects

i. Requirements for registration, especially §2 bars ii. Benefits of registration:

1. Presumption of validity and ownership 2. Incontestability 3. Geographic reach of rights

h. International reach: territoriality principle 2. Has D prima facie infringed P’s rights?

a. Actionable Use required? TM use rule – not really b. Likelihood of Confusion c. Likelihood of Dilution

3. If P has rights in a valid mark, D has prima facie infringed those rights; does D have an affirmative defense?

a. Creeping Genericity b. Abandonment c. Laches d. Good faith junior user with prior rights in a particular locale e. Functionality - when trade dress is registered burden on D f. Fair Use g. First Sale Doctrine h. Parody i. First Amendment


7

Relevant Tests

Distinctiveness Tests

Abercrombie Test for Word Marks 1. Prospective of the reasonable CONSUMER in market context 2. Inherently distinctive: no secondary meaning required and protected so long as

you are first to use a. Suggestive: suggests properties of a product but requires imagination b. Fanciful: made-up name/coined (Kodak) c. Arbitrary: real words that have no relation to product, no description of

product (Crest toothpaste) 3. Descriptive: describes the product

a. Requires secondary meaning to be protected (consumers are using descriptive mark to refer to source)

4. Generic: primary significance to consumers is reference to a class of products rather than to a particular brand (Lite Beer). NO Protection.

a. Two types: i. Generic from outset (Filipino Yellow Pages; Warehouse shoes) - no

registration ii. Acquired Genericity: over time

1. Appropriated by consumers 2. Can be ground for cancellation if TM owner can't prevent

creeping genericity 3. Owner may or may not have been diligent in policing use of

mark a. Can sometimes be protected via unfair competition law

b. Burden of Proof i. If registered, burden on defendant to show generic.

ii. If unregistered and defendant claiming it was generic from outset, burden on P to show that it's not.

iii. If unregistered and defendant claiming creeping genericity, burden on D to show.

c. Why not protect generic marks? i. Potential anticompetitive effects:

1. A bit of a conflict with patent law - you had a monopoly on use, can't protect indefinitely with TM law

ii. Network benefit of easier communication about a class of products with new generic term

5. Why not always require secondary meaning? a. Implies significant number of consumers using as source identifier b. Start-up companies will have period of no protection, another user can come

in and get secondary meaning first and screw them. c. Lowers administration cost - surveys are expensive d. Fewer alternatives for descriptive marks than with ID marks - low error

costs


8

Seabrook Test for Logos 1. Is logo unique, unusual in particular market? 2. Is it "common" basic shape or design? 3. Is it a mere refinement of well-known form of ornamentation for particular class of

goods? 4. Capable of distinct impression from accompanying words?

Wal-Mart Test for Trade Dress 1. Product Design

a. REQUIRES secondary meaning in order to be protected b. Less chance of consumer equating design features with source, since even

unique designs are seen to render product more useful/appealing, not signify source in any way.

i. Thus, like descriptive words, it gets secondary meaning only protection

c. ID test for design could be negatively affected from a lack of competition with respect to utilitarian and aesthetic purposes of a product's design

2. Product packaging a. Can be protected by a showing of inherent distinctiveness b. Because, like word marks, inherent distinctiveness can be derived from

purpose of encasing a product in distinctive packaging, and thus consumers will treat it as an indicator of source

3. "Tertium Quid" a. Basically a way to save Two Pesos - a third category that doesn't really fit into

packaging or design i. Ex: restaurant exterior/interior/overall feel

b. Not widely adopted 4. Why the division?

a. Striking of an optimal policy balance, particularly with respect to protection of ID marks without secondary meaning

b. Product design will rarely do two things product packaging can do: i. Not likely to be spontaneously or automatically adopted as a source-

identifier ii. Protecting it is likely to create serious harm to competition that

functionality can't handle 1. Chilling effect of possible strike suits and the burden of proving

functionality (costs) c. Two Pesos and Qualitex court handles competitiveness concerns with

functionality i. But functionality test evolved at time of Wal-Mart to lead them to

concerns about litigation and administrative costs of strike suits chilling competition

ii. Also allows defendant to get early case dismissal if no proof of 2M


9

Use and Priority

Abandonment by non-use 1. § 45(1): mark unused in commerce more than 3 years establishes rebuttable

presumption of abandonment a. Technically an affirmative defense b. Must show intent to resume within 3 year period to rebut presumption

i. "reasonably foreseeable future" - argue that this should be tailored to circumstances/market

ii. No "warehousing" of mark - TM functions not served if no use, should be opened to public

c. "Token use" may not be sufficient i. Need mark on the product themselves

ii. Ask: would P's use qualify them for registration? d. "Residual goodwill" - protection of marks against another's use even when

discontinued i. Ferrari v. McBurnie as opposed to Stickley v. Canal Dover - protection

of marks continuing to be serviced and the residual goodwill from sales

ii. Note: there is a difference between goodwill and intent, but courts will sometimes use residual goodwill as a way to avoid abandonment

Abandonment by Failure to Control Use ("Naked Licensing") 1. Lose significance as a mark when a mark is licensed out and there is a failure to

control quality a. At common law licensing logically inconsistent with concern about fraud

about specific source of goods b. Now, marks stand as a general signifier of qualify, allowing for licensing. c. Licensor and licensee both have incentives to maintain quality -- loss of TM

protection and monetary incentives, respectively 2. Question of control by the licensor

a. Must police use by licensee i. The mere fact that a K gives right to police or control is insufficient

b. Can have express or implied licenses (University Book Store v. UW - Madison)

Ownership

Surrogate Use 1. Use by affiliates, the question is one of ownership

a. A uses mark but B has rights b. § 5 provides for this in the "related company rule"

i. Defined in relation to control of the mark with respect to nature and quality of goods/services associated with mark

c. Common in parent-subsidiary or franchisor-franchisee relationships


10

i. The subsidiary develops the goodwill and uses the mark, but the parent owns

1. So likely if control isn't being policed as in assignments in gross the mark loses significance?

d. Related problem - group usage (bands, etc) i. Generally all the members would own the mark as an

entity/partnership 1. A member couldn't leave and use mark on their own

ii. If sufficient time were to pass between current use and group use, current user may have abandonment defense

iii. If dissolution but someone continues to use mark, ask: who is controlling the quality of the mark?

Assignments in Gross 1. Lanham Act § 10(a) allows formerly disallowed practice of selling (assigning) marks

a. Must be accompanied by a transfer for mark's goodwill b. Failure to do so is "in gross" and assignor would still have the rights and the

sale would be void i. Thus abandonment issues can result

c. The services of assignee must be substantially similar to original services (consumer protection issues)

i. Covered in Sugar Busters (also be on lookout for potential 1st Amend issues with things like book titles)

2. "Assignment-license back" transactions - convoluted transaction to restore reality with consumer expectations

a. Potentially infringing user assigns their mark to P, then P licenses back their mark to them. So in fact the mark does indicate a single source (Gallo)


11

Functionality

Competitive Necessity Test/Morton-Norwich Factors Expired utility patent Number of alternatives Tout utilitarian advantages in advertising Particularly cost-effective to use the design

Registration Bars 2A

o scandalous, disparaging, deceptive o likelihood of confusion o confusion-based theory

2C o Only applies to natural persons o Publicity rights theory

2E o Merely descriptive/deceptively misdescriptive o Primarily geographically descriptive marks (PGM registrable with secondary

meaning) o Primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks (PGDM

absolutely barred) o Personal name marks (registrable with proof of secondary meaning)


12

Test for Deceptive Marks 1. Does the mark misdescribe the goods? 2. Is the description believable? 3. Is this likely to affect the consumer's purchasing decision?

Territoriality and International Marks

Bone's Test for Geographic Marks: 1. Is the primary significance of the mark a geographic location that's not obscure? 2. Goods/place association? 3. Goods come from place? 4. Consumers care? Is it material to their choice to buy the goods/services?

How much good will is needed for the well-known mark to apply? 1. Is it enough to have secondary meaning? no. "Secondary meaning plus" 2. Majority - "substantial percentage of consumers/potential consumers in the

relevant American market" have to be familiar with the mark. About 22%.

Infringement of TM Rights

Likelihood of Confusion Factors: Mark Strength: Inherent or Acquired Mark Similarity (most important factor)

o Market setting o What's the typeface, what's being used in conjunction, etc. o Sight, sound and meaning (the trilogy)

Take the mark as a whole: Virgin v. Virgin WIRELESS Product Proximity (third most important) Bridge the Gap: General or Specific - has actual plans Actual Confusion

o Proven by actual/direct evidence o Surveys

Consumer Sophistication - the more sophisticated consumers are, and the more attention they place on purchases, the less likely they are to be confused.

Bad Faith Intent (second most important factor) if you show bad faith intent, 95% of the time you get likelihood of confusion

Comparative product quality

Trademark Law Outline - Amazon S3 · Trademark, Bone 2015 6 Outline 1. Does P have rights in a valid mark? a. No per se exclusions? b. Distinctive i. Word marks: Abercrombie test

Documents