trademarks class 4 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Trademarks Class 4 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Trademarks Class 4

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Trademarks Class 4 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on

Trademarks Class 4. Federal registration and geographic scope International use and domestic rights. Dawn Donut Co. 2. Dawn Donut v. Hart’s Food Stores.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Trademarks Class 4' - beulah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
trademarks class 4

Trademarks Class 4

Federal registration and geographic scope

International use and domestic rights

dawn donut v hart s food stores
Dawn Donut v. Hart’s Food Stores

“[T]he fact that [Hart] employed the mark ‘Dawn,’ without actual knowledge of [Dawn Donut’s] registration, at the retail level in a limited geographical area of New York state before [Dawn] used the mark in that market, does not entitle it either to exclude [Dawn] from using the mark in that area or to use the mark concurrently once [Dawn] licenses the mark or otherwise exploits it in connection with retail sales in the area.” [93]

dawn might get injunction in future
Dawn might get injunction in future

“The decisive question then is whether plaintiff’s use of the mark ‘Dawn’ at the retail level is likely to be confined to its current area of use or whether in the normal course of its business, it is likely to expand the retail use of the mark into defendant’s trading area. . . [T]he plaintiff may later, upon a proper showing of an intent to use the mark at the retail level in defendant’s market area, be entitled to enjoin defendant’s use of the mark.” [94-95]

the basic fact patterns
The basic fact patterns

Pure junior user (as in Dawn Donut):

  • S begins use
  • S registers mark
  • J begins use

Junior intermediate user:

  • S begins use
  • J begins use
  • S registers mark

Senior unregistered user:

  • S begins use
  • J begins use
  • J registers mark
burger king v hoots
Burger King v. Hoots
  • 1953: BK’s first use of the mark, in the south
  • 1957: Hoots began using the mark in Mattooon, Illinois, without notice of BK’s use
  • 1961: BK began using the mark in elsewhere in Illinois, and obtained a federal registration, now incontestable
compare dawn donuts to burger king
Compare Dawn Donuts to Burger King
  • Dawn Donuts begins use
  • Dawn Donuts registers mark
  • Hart Foods begins use
  • BK begins use
  • Hoots begins use
  • BK registers mark
person s v christman
Person’s v. Christman
  • 1977: Person’s first use of PERSON’S in Japan
  • Apr. 1982:Christman’s first use of PERSON’S in commerce in the U.S.
  • Nov. 1982: Person’s first use of PERSON’S in commerce in the U.S.
effect of foreign use
Effect of foreign use

“. . . Person’s Co. relies on its use of the mark in Japan in an attempt to support its claim for priority in the United States. Such foreign use has no effect on U.S. commerce and cannot form the basis for a holding that appellant has priority here” [115]

bad faith could defeat senior user
Bad faith could defeat senior user

“Knowledge of a foreign use does not preclude good faith adoption and use in the United States. While there is some case law supporting a finding of bad faith where (1) the foreign mark is famous here or (2) the use is a nominal one made solely to block the prior foreign user’s planned expansion into the United States, as the Board correctly found, neither of these circumstances is present in this case.” [116-17]

madrid protocol
Madrid Protocol
  • Applicant files an international application with home trademark office (based on domestic application or registration)
  • International application is forwarded to WIPO, which issues an international registration
  • WIPO notifies each designated country of the application
  • Each country considers the application under national law
madrid protocol cont d
Madrid Protocol (cont’d)
  • If a country doesn’t reject the application within 12 months (or 18 months), the mark gains national protection
  • If registration in home country is invalidated within 5 years, international registration is nullified
  • Initial term is 10 years, with 10-year renewals