intellectual property boston college law school april 14, 2008 trademark – genericide,...

Intellectual Property

Boston College Law School

April 14, 2008

Trademark – Genericide, Functionality

Infringement

• Causes of Action– Likelihood of Confusion– Dilution– Cybersquatting– False Advertising

Defenses

• Genericness

• Functionality

• Abandonment

• Nominative Use

• Parody

Murphy Door Bed v. Interior

Generic?

• Generic– Thermos

– Escalator

– Trampoline

– Cellophane

– Nylon

– Yo-Yo

Avoiding Genericide

Functionality

• Lanham Act § 2(e)(5)– No trademark … shall be refused registration

… unless it --• (e) Consists of a mark which, … (5) comprises any

matter that, as a whole, is functional

TrafFix v. MDI121 S. Ct. 1255 (2001)

Functionality

• When is something “functional”?– Essential to the use or purpose of the article– Affects the cost or quality of the product

• Overall inquiry– Exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant

non-reputation-related disadvantage• Relevant Factors

– Existence of a utility patent disclosing utilitarian advantages

– Advertising materials touting utilitarian advantages– Unavailability of alternative designs– Simpler or cheaper method of manufacturing

• Burden of proof on trademark holder

Hypos

Patent, Copyright, Trademark

Patent Copyright

TrademarkFunctionality

Doctrine

Useful ArticleDoctrine

ProductDesign

FictionalCharacters

ComputerSoftware

Administrative

• Next Assignment– Read through VI.E.4 – Finish Defenses