Exporting Trademark Confusion

2011 ◽  
pp. 113-160
Author(s):  
Ann Bartow
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
Trademark Dilution ◽  
Typical Consumer

A judicial determination of “likelihood of confusion” is the linchpin of successful trademark infringement actions in the United States, and is often useful to prevail on a trademark dilution cause of action as well. Such determinations are exceedingly subjective, and often seem premised on a very low estimation of the intelligence and powers of discernment of the typical consumer. Many appear virtually pretextual, simply adopted as a necessary step in “protecting” trademarks and according trademark holders broad property-like rights that can impair competition and silence free speech. Though seemingly irrational and generally socially undesirable, U.S. “likelihood of confusion” jurisprudence has gained a foothold in cyberspace through dispute-resolution procedures addressing disputes about Internet domain names. In consequence, trademark holders generally prevail and are increasingly seen as holding inchoate rights in any domain name containing, alluding to, or similar to their trademarks across the globe, even though U.S. trademark law logically should not have extraterritorial application.

Online Brands and Trademark Conflicts: A Hegelian Perspective

2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Spinello
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Consumer Confusion ◽  
Trademark Dilution ◽  
Online Brands ◽  
Free Speech Rights

Abstract:The Internet presents opportunities for corporations to efficiently build their brands online and to enhance their global reach. But there are threats as well as opportunities, since anti-branding and free-riding activities are easier in cyberspace. One such threat is the unauthorized incorporation of a trademark into a domain name. This can lead to trademark dilution and cause consumer confusion. But some users claim a right to use these trademarks for the purpose of parody or criticism. Underlying these trademark conflicts is the familiar tension between property rights and free speech rights. While some trademark scholars are reluctant to consider a trademark as property, we find strong support for the property paradigm in Hegel’s philosophy. Assuming that a trademark is an earned property right, we propose that a trademark owner should be allowed to control the permutations of its trademark incorporated into domain names unless a reasonable person would not confuse that domain name with the company’s mark. But we also conclude that there must be latitude to employ a domain name for negative editorial comment, so long as the source and purpose of that domain name is plainly apparent.

United States Of America (‘.us’)

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R Towns
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
The One

The standard for trademark infringement in the United States is ‘likelihood of confusion’. Under this standard trademark infringement occurs when, dependent on the attendant circumstances, two parties’ use of the same or similar mark with related goods and services would be likely to cause the public mistakenly to believe: (1) that the goods and services emanate from the same source; or (2) that the parties are in some manner affiliated or that the goods and services of one party have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of the other party. In either case, trademark law aims to protect the public from deceit, and to prevent the diversion of reputation and goodwill from the one who has created it to another who has not.

scholarly journals Trademark.com: Trademark Law in Cyberspace

1969 ◽  
pp. 991
Author(s):  
Lisa Katz Jones
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Detailed Explanation ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Significant Difference

his article examines the current issues in trademark law surrounding internet domain names. The author introduces the topic with a detailed explanation of the use and purpose of domain names, the significance of the various levels in domain names and how domain names compare and contract mth IP addresses. Of significant difference is the use of words and names in domain names. Organizations often use recognizable and familiar names to improve the chance Internet users will access their websites. Trademark issues are sparked by the battle to obtain and/or retain these highly sought after domain names. The author discusses the areas of conflict when: I) a domain name is registered by an individual who has no connection with the mark, 2) two or more organizations have claims to the same domain name, 3) one domain name is confusingly similar to another, and 4) when second level domain names can be assigned to multiple first level domain names. Two essential legal issues are identified: whether domain names are protectable as trademarks and whether a domain name can violate a trademark. Courts have used the analogy of telephone mnemonics to help answer these issues in favour of recognizing mnemonics as a protectable trademark, although there is split authority on how much protection can be given to domain names that incorporate generic terms. Trends in litigation in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom are discussed. Despite the de facto judicial power given to NSIfor dispute resolution, the author identifies fundamental flaws of the NSI policy owing the current controversies over Internet domain names. The article concludes with a discussion of several major proposals to implement changes regarding domain names allocation.

scholarly journals Adventures In Cyberspace: The Status Of Cybersquatting And ADR

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Donavan Ropp ◽  
Brian McNamara
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Academic Programs ◽  
Cover Letter ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Sports Teams ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Status ◽  
Improper Use ◽  
The University

The University of Nowhere owns a trademark for the University of Nowhere and for the University of Nowhere Winners, the universitys sports teams. It also owns the domain name www.un.edu. The University uses its Internet site to inform the public about its academic programs as well as its accomplishments on the sports fields. The University has been recognized as one of the top universities in the United States for many years. The University has also competed successfully for numerous NCAA titles over the years. The University discovers that Mr. First, owner of Fast Services of America, Inc., registered and is using the Internet domain name university of nowhere.com and universityofnowherewinners.com on a continuing basis. The University contacts Mr. First, who informs the University that he has no intention of relinquishing the domain names unless the University pays him $10,000 and gives him two lifetime passes to all Winner games. The University declines the offer and writes a letter to Mr. First informing him that he must stop using the University domain names immediately. Mr. First responds by sending the University an invoice for $10,000 and two lifetime tickets to Winner events. The cover letter to the invoice states that he will not stop using the domain names until the invoice is paid. This is now a dispute. It is going to cost money for both parties, regardless of the outcome. Additionally, there is the new area of law to contend with that relates to alleged cybersquatting and the improper use of domain names. This paper will explore and review approaches for resolving this dispute through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.

scholarly journals SUSTAINIBILITY OF INDONESIA TRADEMARK LAW AS UMBRELLA LAW IN RESOLVING DOMAIN NAMES DISPUTE IN INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
Ayup Suran Ningsih
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Important Thing ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Comprehensive Discussion

AbstractProtection regarding intellectual property in domain names becomes an important thing that must be considered by the domain name’s holder or user. Domain names are by character quite similar to trademarks since they serve as source indicators. This article is written to analyse the Suitability of Indonesia Trademarks Law as Umbrella Law in Resolving Domain Names Dispute in Indonesia. The methodology used in writing this article is normative legal research. Through the comprehensive discussion, it can be concluded that Indonesia trademark law is not suitable to resolve domain name dispute in Indonesia. A domain name is different from a mark based on Indonesia Trademark Law.  IntisariPerlindungan terkait kekayaan intelektual dalam nama domain menjadi hal penting yang harus dipertimbangkan oleh pemegang atau pengguna nama domain. Nama domain secara karakter sangat mirip dengan merek dagang karena mereka berfungsi sebagai indikator sumber. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis Kesesuaian Hukum Merek Dagang Indonesia sebagai Hukum Payung dalam Menyelesaikan Sengketa Nama Domain di Indonesia. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penulisan artikel ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Melalui pembahasan yang komprehensif dapat disimpulkan bahwa hukum merek dagang Indonesia tidak cocok untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan nama domain di Indonesia. Nama domain berbeda dengan tanda yang diatur pada UU Merek Dagang Indonesia.

Empirical Investigation of Sport Trademark Dilution Using Contingent Valuation Method

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-200
Author(s):  
Sungho Cho ◽  
J. Lucy Lee ◽  
June Won ◽  
Jong Kwan (Jake) Lee
Keyword(s):  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Contingent Valuation Method ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Psychology And Law ◽  
Valuation Method ◽  
Trademark Dilution ◽  
Dilution Theory

Under the federal trademark law, owners of famous sport trademarks may bring legal claims against unauthorized users of their marks under the infringement and dilution theory. Although the rationale of trademark infringement has been supported by various notions of consumer psychology and law and economics, the theory of dilution has been criticized for the lack of empirical support. This study investigated whether the junior use of major sport trademarks would have dilutive effects on the senior marks in financial terms. The study employed the contingent valuation method, a technique designed to estimate the economic values of nonpecuniary assets such as trademarks. A total of 140 subjects were exposed to dilutive information while they purchased sport brand merchandise. A series of pre- and posttests revealed that moderately famous sport trademarks suffered dilutive harm from junior use, whereas exceptionally famous marks were immune to the dilutive effects. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

scholarly journals Virtual Countries: Internet Domain Names and Geographical Terms

2003 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Final Section ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The Republic

This paper examines the dispute between the Seattle company Virtual Countries Inc. and the Republic of South Africa over the ownership of the domain name address southafrica.com . The first part of the paper deals with the pre-emptive litigation taken by Virtual Countries Inc. in a District Court of the United States. The second part considers the possible arbitration of the dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and examines the wider implications of this dispute for the jurisdiction and the governance of ICANN. The final section of the paper evaluates the Final Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.

scholarly journals Could telemedicine generate.med as top-level domain name?

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-126
Author(s):  
Svetozar Zdravkovic
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
A Current

The article presents a consideration of top-level domain names and possibility that telemedicine generates top-level domain name for medicine itself. Using the United States of America domain, the article has tried to explain all the most important facts about top-level domain names. It has also presents a current situation about responsibility in this sector and the mode to adopt new top-level domains.

State-by-State Use of AMA Guides

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 3-7, 16
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Narrow Range ◽  
The United States ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Federal Employees ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
History Of ◽  
Canadian Provinces

Abstract This article presents a history of the origins and development of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), from the publication of an article titled “A Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment of the Extremities and Back” (1958) until a compendium of thirteen guides was published in book form in 1971. The most recent, sixth edition, appeared in 2008. Over time, the AMA Guides has been widely used by US states for workers’ compensation and also by the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as well as by Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions around the world. In the United States, almost twenty states have developed some form of their own impairment rating system, but some have a narrow range and scope and advise evaluators to consult the AMA Guides for a final determination of permanent disability. An evaluator's impairment evaluation report should clearly document the rater's review of prior medical and treatment records, clinical evaluation, analysis of the findings, and a discussion of how the final impairment rating was calculated. The resulting report is the rating physician's expert testimony to help adjudicate the claim. A table shows the edition of the AMA Guides used in each state and the enabling statute/code, with comments.

Current perspectives in antithrombotic therapy

2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 82-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Hoppensteadt ◽  
O. Iqbal ◽  
R. L. Bick ◽  
J. Fareed
Keyword(s):  
Blood Coagulation ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Thrombotic Event ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vascular Thrombosis ◽  
Common Cause ◽  
Coagulation Protein ◽  
Coronary Events ◽  
Platelet Defects

SummaryThrombotic disorders are the most common cause of death in the United States. About two million individuals die each year from an arterial or venous thrombosis or related disorders. About 80% to 90% of all cases of thrombosis can now be defined with respect to cause. Of these, over 50% occur in patients who harbor a congenital or acquired blood coagulation protein or platelet defect which caused the thrombotic event. It is obviously of major importance to define those individuals harboring such a defect as this allows: 1) appropriate antithrombotic therapy to decrease risks of recurrence; 2) determination of the length of time the patient must remain on therapy for secondary prevention; and 3) allow for testing of family members of those harboring a blood coagulation protein or platelet defect which is hereditary (about 50% of all coagulation and platelet defects mentioned above). Aside from mortality, significant additional morbidity occurs from both arterial or venous thrombotic events, including, but not limited to paralysis (non-fatal thrombotic stroke), cardiac disability (repeated coronary events), loss of vision (retinal vascular thrombosis), fetal waste syndrome (placental vascular thrombosis), stasis ulcers and other manifestations of post-phlebitic syndrome, etc.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document