‘Descriptivess’ in American Trade Mark Law

Author(s):  
David W. Quinto ◽  
Anthony P. Alden
Author(s):  
Alexander Mühlendahl ◽  
Dimitris Botis ◽  
Spyros Maniatis ◽  
Imogen Wiseman

Trade marks that are not inherently distinctive or that are descriptive or generic may nevertheless be registered if they have, as a result of the use that has been made of them, acquired distinctiveness, or what is called in US American trade mark law, ‘secondary meaning’. The legal basis for this basis for registration is found in Article 3(3) of the Directive and in Article 7(3) CTMR.


2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 583
Author(s):  
Michael McGowan

This article examines the relatively new fields of colour and shape trade marks. It was initially feared by some academics that the new marks would encroach on the realms of patent and copyright.  However, the traditional requirements of trade mark law, such as functionality and descriptiveness, have meant that trade marks in colour and shape are extremely hard to acquire if they do not have factual distinctiveness. As colour and shape trade marks have no special restrictions, it is proposed that the combination trade mark theory and analysis from the Diamond T case should be used as a way to make them more accessible. The combination analysis can be easily applied because every product has a three dimensional shape and a fourth dimension of colour.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document