duck® brand duck tape®. university of oregon™ marks university of oregon™ oregon ducks™ go...
TRANSCRIPT
Duck® brand Duck Tape®
University of Oregon™ Marks
• University Of Oregon™
• Oregon Ducks™
• Go Ducks®
• Oregon Football™
• Oregon Basketball™
• Oregon Track And Field™
• Track Town®
• Hayward Field, Autzen Stadium, Mac Court, And Howe Field
Tinker Hatfield
GoGo Sports Inc v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc et al (2011)
• Case Brief
Trademark Searches
• USTPO search
– Only federal marks....
• State of Oregon trademark
• Oregon state search form
– Only marks registered in the state
• No common law search available
Territoriality
• Once trademark rights are established in a particular jurisdiction, these rights are generally only enforceable in that jurisdiction.
• Madrid Protocol:
– International application, 84 countries
– File once
– 10 year renewals
– Part of WIPO
Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999
• 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)
• Prevents people from buying domain names featuring famous trademarks with NO INTENTION of using them but SELLING them
• Cannot use domain name that “dilutes” a known trademark
Infringing on Ma®ks
• Dilution:
– Use lessens distinctiveness of usually FAMOUS marks; high potential for consumer confusion
• 1) Blur: Use a famous mark or similar mark in different market. Sony Beer, Disney Rolling Papers. “Whittling away” of distinctiveness
• 2) Tarnishment: unflattering association that weakens the mark, reflects poorly of product's owner (Moral right?)
• Easier to dilute famous marks: Nike or Coca-Cola
Starbucks v. Dwyer (2001)
Kieron Dwyer “Lowest
Common Denominator” Trademark parody? Tarnished, confusing, dilution Settlement Restricted use to web
Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising (1972)
Mosely v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)
• Supreme Court decision
• Victor's Secret, then Victor's Little Secret
• Dilution of Victoria's Secret trademark
• First test of Fed. Trademark Dilution Act (1995)
• Ruling: in favor of Mosely
• Sig: must prove actual harm
• Trademark Dilution Revision Act (2006)
Fair and Balanced®
• “It is ironic that a media company that should seek to protect the First Amendment is instead seeking to undermine it.” ~Judge Chin
Swoosh
Designed by Carolyn Davidson, 1971, $35 ®egistered 1974 Nike Brand=$15B 90% of $19B=Logo
Cease & Desist