General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) :
The GATT was originally created in 1946 to work out international agreements on world merchandise trade. Since then there have been several “rounds” of the GATT. While serious trademark discussions occurred in the Tokyo Round of the 70’s and again in the ’80s, it wasn’t until the Geneva Round in which TRIPs (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property) marked a true involvement of GATT into the area of intellectual property. The WTO (World Trade Organization) and the TRIPs Council monitor the implementation of TRIPs and its enforcement mechanisms. One of the specific changes to U.S. law arising out of GATT are the 1995 amendments to Lanham Act. Specifically section 2(a) was amended to include a prohibition against the registration of any geographical mark for wines or spirits not from the place indicated in the mark.
Generic marks :
These are words or symbols that describe the product or service itself as a category, rather than distinguish between competing versions of the product or service. For example, “shredded wheat” is a generic term that refers to the category of breakfast cereals that are composed of layers of crunchy wheat strips molded together into a pillow-type shape. This cereal may be manufactured by Kellogg’s, Post or others., and each manufacturer is free to use the term “shredded wheat” to advertise their version of the cereal. To prevent them from using “shredded wheat” would mean they could not equally compete with regard to this product. Thus, generic words are not protected as trademarks precisely because to do so would be akin to granting a monopoly in the product itself, not in a word or symbol.
Genericness as a defense :
Defendants can succeed with a genericness defense when the mark which has allegedly been infringed is a mark that describes the entire category or genus of product that the mark is supposed to distinguish, and thus cannot receive protection under the law. Generic marks are either generic from the outset, or become generic after they become part of the common descriptive name of a category or genus of products. Thus a mark that has been registered can loose its registration through a cancellation proceeding or by order of the court where the term has been shown to have become generic through use.
Genericide :
This occurs when a trademark starts out as distinctive or descriptive, but then though use becomes generic. This occurs when the mark becomes part of the common descriptive name of a category or genus of products. Genericide is more likely to happen to marks that are used improperly as nouns instead of adjectives, whether such usage is by the trademark owner or by others.
Geographically remote area :
An area in which a mark has no presence either through actual use, advertising or general reputation. As a general rule, a trademark owner has no rights in geographically remote areas, unless the mark is federally registered in which case the mark has nationwide priority, even if there is no presence in the mark for a given region. For unregistered marks, the doctrine of natural expansion provides another exception to the requirement that a trademark be used in a area in order for rights in it to exist.
Geographical terms, trademark protection of :
Geographical terms are those that convey to consumers a geographical connotation primarily or immediately , where such consumers are likely to believe that the underlying goods or services in fact come from that location. Such terms fall into three categories:
- Primarily geographically descriptive;
- Geographically deceptively misdescriptive; or
- Geographically deceptive.
The first two are capable of protection if the owner can demonstrate they have acquired distinction through secondary meaning, while the latter of these, geographically deceptive marks are never capable of receiving protection. If the geographic mark is accurate, it is geographically descriptive. If not, then the mark is either geographically deceptively misdescriptive or geographically deceptive, depending on which test a court applies, and the facts of the situation.
A minority of courts look at the intent of the mark owner, while most courts look at whether or not consumers are likely to materially rely upon the misdescription. Thus a mark will be geographically deceptive if either the owner intended to to deceive the public about the origin of the product, or if consumers are likely to rely upon the misdescription in making their purchasing decisions. Finally, after the U.S. implementation of TRIPs, the Lanham Act. 2(a) has been amended to include a prohibition against the registration of any geographical mark for wines or spirits not from the place indicated in the mark.
Geographical territory :
The geographical territory is the territory in which one uses a mark. Use in a territory generally determines the extent of trademark rights granted to the user. The first to use a mark in one region has exclusive rights in the mark for that region, and a junior user of a mark in that region can be forced to cease using the mark there. However, the senior user cannot stop the junior user from using the mark in a different territory as long as the junior user is the first to use the mark in that particular territory. Two notable exceptions to this rule are nationwide priority which is only available to federally registered marks, and the doctrine of natural expansion, which is available to any mark owner.
Good faith defense :
When a defendant claims that use of plaintiff’s mark is defensible as a fair use, one deciding factor is whether or not the defendant was exercising good faith. Good faith means that the defendant did not use the mark in order to “cash in” on the plaintiffs hard work in generating goodwill with consumers. If it appears that defendant was justifiably using the mark in order to describe the underlying goods or services, then the defendant will likely be found to have had good faith in using the mark. Furthermore, since the plaintiff in a trademark lawsuit is often seeking injunctive relief, which is an equitable remedy requiring the balancing of harms, whether or not the defendant exercised good faith or bad faith can have a considerable impact on the court’s decision.
Goodwill :
An intangible reward for businesses once they generate “name recognition” and establish public confidence in their goods or services. When this happens, consumers want to return to that business for repeat purchases. Thus, as goodwill increases, so does demand, and the business can then raise its prices in accordance. Without trademarks, most businesses would be unable to establish goodwill because their customers would have no way of recognizing their products or services. Erosion of goodwill occurs when consumer confusion exists as to a product’s source. Thus, protection of goodwill is one of the primary purposes of trademark law, and is highly guarded.
Goodwill, assignment without :
Assignment or transfer of a trademark must occur in conjunction with the transfer of goodwill represented by that mark, or else the assignment is invalid. Furthermore, if assignment occurs without goodwill, the trademark is effectively abandoned Typically, it is the assignee’s rights in the mark that are abandoned, but sometimes it is the assignor that abandons its rights. The result of such an abandonment on the assignee is that the assignee cannot benefit from the early first use date of the assignor, and must instead go by the assignee’s date of first use in order to establish priority.
Grammatical rules when using marks :
Failure to use the proper grammatical rules when using a trademark may result in the mark becoming generic, and thereby loosing all its protection. Specifically, it is very important to always use the mark as if it were an adjective, and never use it as a noun. For example, do not allow marketing material to read, “Aurora is the best cat litter on the market.” Instead say, “Aurora brand cat litter is the best on the market,” or even “Aurora cat litter is the best….” This may seem a ridiculous distinction to some. However, the consequences for dismissing this advice are great. If your mark is challenged on the basis that it is generic, you will have a much harder time arguing that it is not generic when you have treated your mark as if it were a class of goods, rather than a single brand in a class of goods.”
Gray-market goods (Parallel Imports) :
These are goods that are manufactured abroad for sale in foreign countries and properly marked with trademarks registered in the United States. Later these goods are purchased and imported into the United States to compete with the United States trademark owner’s or licensee’s own products. There is considerable incentive to sell gray-market goods in the United States if the prices on goods sold abroad are substantially lower than those sold in the United States. The interesting dilemma created by gray-market goods is that there is ostensibly no trademark infringement since the mark does in fact represent the true source of the goods to which the mark is affixed. For this reason, Congress passed 19 U.S.C. § 1526 to address the problem by stopping such imports at the border, with a couple exceptions. If the foreign manufacturer who affixes the mark to the goods is a related company (i.e. subsidiary or brother -sister company) to the United States trademark owner, then 19 U.S.C. § 1526 will not prohibit the importation. The statute will also not prohibit the importation of goods that are purchased by an individual in a foreign country and brought into the United States for personal use and not for resale.
Grounds for cancellation :
Cancellation of a trademark registration can occur within the first five years of registration for any reason that the mark could have been precluded from registration in the first place. Specifically, that includes:
- Likelihood of confusion with petitioner’s previously used or registered mark,
- Fraud,
- Descriptiveness,
- Genericness,
- Abandonment,
- Misdescriptiveness and deceptiveness.
However, fair use, trademark misuse, unfair competition, or violation of anti-trust laws are generally not considered valid grounds for cancellation.
Five years after registration, and if incontestability status has been successfully obtained, the mark can no longer be canceled on the basis that the mark lacks distinctiveness or creates a likelihood of confusion with a prior-registered mark. However, the mark can still be canceled on the basis of:
(1) Genericness,
(2) Abandonment,
(3) Fraud,
(4) The mark is forbidden,
(5) The mark is an improperly used collective or certification mark,
(6) The mark disparages or falsely suggests a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or
(7) The mark is used to misrepresent the source of goods.
Since these latter two grounds (6 & 7) appear akin to likelihood of confusion, which is supposed to be ruled out as a ground for cancellation after the five year period, they have been the subject of criticism. In any event, if you are claiming cancellation on the basis of 6 or 7, you will inevitably need to prove something more than likelihood of confusion to succeed.
Grounds for dilution lawsuits :
In order to have a claim for federal trademark dilution, the mark in question must be famous, and use of the mark must either blur the mark’s product identification; or tarnish the affirmative associations conveyed by the mark. State dilution laws may have slightly different grounds, such a mark which is distinctive or well known, rather than one that is famous. Likelihood of confusion is not a required element of a federal dilution lawsuit.
Grounds for infringement lawsuits :
Grounds for trademark infringement lawsuits exist when there is use of another company’s trademark that is likely to cause an appreciable number of consumers to be confused about the source of the underlying goods or services. Such use must occur in the same geographic territory as the allegedly infringed mark being used. Click here for more information on confusingly similar marks.
Grounds for opposition :
The grounds for opposition can be as broad as “any person who believes that [they] would be damaged by the registration of a mark.” Despite this broad language, it is also true that the opposer must have a personal interest in the outcome beyond that of the general public, and generally involved with the goods or services that may be described by the alleged mark. Oppositions are most commonly filed when a mark is (1) likely to confuse consumers with respect to an existing mark, (2) descriptive, (3) generic, (4) misdescriptive, (5) deceptive, or (6) registered under fraud.
