Upload
melvyn-underwood
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Trademarks IVTrademarks IVDomain Names & TrademarksDomain Names & Trademarks
Class Notes: April 9, 2003Class Notes: April 9, 2003
Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 20032003
Professor WagnerProfessor Wagner
4/9/034/9/03 22Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
Today’s AgendaToday’s Agenda
1.1. Brief Cleanup:Brief Cleanup: Dilution Analysis Dilution Analysis
2.2. Defenses: Parody and Nominative UseDefenses: Parody and Nominative Use
3.3. Domain Names & TrademarksDomain Names & Trademarks
a) The ACPA
b) The UDRP
c) Marks & ‘Net Governance
4/9/034/9/03 33Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
DilutionDilutionDistinction b/w Likelihood of Confusion & DilutionDistinction b/w Likelihood of Confusion & Dilution
Likelihood of Likelihood of ConfusionConfusion DilutionDilution
Key AnalysisKey Analysis consumer confusionconsumer confusiondiminishment of diminishment of
distinctive quality of distinctive quality of markmark
Types of Marks Types of Marks EligibleEligible
distinctive, or …distinctive, or …
descriptive w/ descriptive w/ secondary meaningsecondary meaning
““famous” and famous” and distinctivedistinctive
Type of infringing Type of infringing use requireduse required
Use in commerceUse in commerce ‘‘commercial use in commercial use in commerce’commerce’
Competing uses or Competing uses or goods required?goods required?
YesYes NoNo
Actual harm Actual harm requiredrequired
NoNo Yes (circumstantial Yes (circumstantial evidence okay)evidence okay)
4/9/034/9/03 44Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
DefensesDefenses
Parody and Nominative UseParody and Nominative Use
Mattel v MCA RecordsMattel v MCA Records (9th Cir. 2002) (9th Cir. 2002)• Why does the court quickly set aside the likelihood of
confusion analysis? (Isn’t MCA using the mark?)• Why does the court suggest that First Amendment
concerns are more significant in the dilution context?• How does the court reconcile the two statutory
references to ‘commercial’ use of the mark?o What does the court find the ‘noncommercial use’
exception means? (Is this what MCA is doing?)
Note also the New Kids On the Block Case (p. 717-Note also the New Kids On the Block Case (p. 717-18):18):• Why is this use of the mark noninfringing?• What does the court mean by the term ‘nominative
use’?
4/9/034/9/03 55Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
Domain Names & TrademarksDomain Names & Trademarks
Quick overview of Domain NamesQuick overview of Domain Names
1.1. Domain Names are an overlay to the Domain Names are an overlay to the internet networkinternet networka)They correspond to an “IP Address”
www.law.upenn.edu = 130.91.144.50
b)They are not necessary to use the ‘net; typing the ip address works just fine
c) When you type a domain name, your computer seeks to ‘resolve’ the name by querying ‘DNS servers’
4/9/034/9/03 66Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
Domain Names DisputesDomain Names Disputes
1.1. Why are there disputes over domain Why are there disputes over domain names?names?• Lack of namespace? (more than 96-characters
allowed)• Inability to find desired web sites?• Inability to determine desired from undesired
web sites?• Desire for short, easily-remembered name
(for marketing purposes)?• Control over references to your
goods/services?
2.2. What is What is cybersquattingcybersquatting? Should there be ? Should there be anything wrong with it?anything wrong with it?
4/9/034/9/03 77Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
Domain Names DisputesDomain Names Disputes
Three Basic ApproachesThree Basic Approaches1.1. Federal trademark lawsuit (typically dilution Federal trademark lawsuit (typically dilution
claim)claim)• Con: Required a series of awkward ‘stretches’
2.2. The ACPA (15 USC § 1125)The ACPA (15 USC § 1125)1. Allows claims for ‘bad faith registration’2. Cons:
• Jurisdictional problems• Federal litigation is expensive, time consuming• Federal courts are sensitive to 1st Amendment issues
3.3. The UDRPThe UDRP• Allows transfer when ‘bad faith’ exists• Cheaper and quicker than ACPA• No jurisdictional problems
4/9/034/9/03 88Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
The ACPAThe ACPA
Shields v ZuccariniShields v Zuccarini (3rd Cir. 2001) (3rd Cir. 2001)• What is it that Zuccarini did? (Is that really so
bad?)• What happened when someone visited Z’s sites?• What are the requirements for an ACPA claim?• Do you agree with the court that joecartoon.com
is famous?• Are misspellings ‘identical or confusingly
similar’?• Why is Z found to be acting in ‘bad faith’? Do
you agree? (Should a commercially-motivated use of the domain name really be an element of bad faith?)
4/9/034/9/03 99Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
The ACPAThe ACPA
PETA v DoughneyPETA v Doughney (4th Cir. 2001) (4th Cir. 2001)• Note the peta.org tagline: “A resource
for those who enjoy eating meat, wearing fur and leather, hunting, and the fruits of scientific research (and more!).”
• How did Doughney act in ‘bad faith’?
• Any practice tips (both for trademark holders and domain name holders) here?
4/9/034/9/03 1010Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
The UDRPThe UDRP
1.1. How does the UDRP become effective How does the UDRP become effective against all domain names?against all domain names?
2.2. Overview of the UDRP process:Overview of the UDRP process:• Trademark owner files a ‘complaint’ with
an approved dispute resolution provider, alleging ‘bad faith’ in registering the mark
• The respondent has a short period of time to respond (a majority do not)
• One (or sometimes three) ‘panelists; decide the case on the basis of the submissions
4/9/034/9/03 1111Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
The UDRPThe UDRPElements of a UDRP claim:Elements of a UDRP claim:
1. Identical/confusingly similarity between mark and domain name
2. No ‘legitimate rights’ in the domain name3. Registration and use in bad faith
Bad faith:Bad faith:1. Primary purpose of reselling domain name to the
complainant or a competitor of complainant2. Registration to prevent mark-holder from using the
name3. Registration to disrupt the business of a competitor4. Attempts to attract ‘net users, for commercial gain, by
creating a likelihood of confusion
Legitimate rightsLegitimate rights1. Use of domain name in bona fide business2. You have been known by the domain name3. Legitimate noncommercial fair use
4/9/034/9/03 1212Law 507 | Spring 2003Law 507 | Spring 2003
Marks and ‘Net GovernanceMarks and ‘Net Governance
1.1. How does the dispute over trademarks How does the dispute over trademarks and domain names implicate ‘net and domain names implicate ‘net governance?governance?
2.2. Are there other ways to deal with the Are there other ways to deal with the issue, aside from establishing a issue, aside from establishing a complex dispute-resolution process?complex dispute-resolution process?• Domain name inalienability• Repetitive domain name auctions• Massive reallocation of domain names• Domain name ‘reservation’ processes• Do nothing