intellectual property boston college law school april 1, 2009 trademark – domain names
Post on 15-Jan-2016
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Intellectual Property
Boston College Law School
April 1, 2009
Trademark – Domain Names
![Page 2: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Trademark Infringement
• Causes of action– Likelihood of confusion– Dilution– Cyber-squatting– False Advertising
![Page 3: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Domain Name System
ICANN
ICANNICANNRegistrarsICANNICANNCountries
.com, .org, .net .us, .uk, .jp
Sites Sites Sites Sites Sites
nike.com coke.com kodak.com nike.uk kodak.jp
![Page 4: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Types of Domain Name Disputes
• Likelihood of Confusion– E.g. nike.com to sell competing shoes
– E.g. plannedparenthood.org for confusing anti-abortion web site
• Dilution of Famous Mark– E.g. nike.com to sell ball bearings (blurring)
– E.g. candyland.com or adultsrus.com (tarnishment)
![Page 5: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Types of Domain Name Disputes
• Cybersquatting– E.g. register nike.com to sell to Nike
– E.g. register panavision.com to sell to Panasonic
• Competitive warehousing– E.g. Princeton Review registering kaplan.com
• Concurrent uses– E.g. Apple Computer and Apple Records
– E.g. Budweiser U.S. and Budweiser Czech Republic
![Page 6: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Types of Domain Name Disputes
• Noncommercial uses– E.g. pokey.org, veronica.org for personal sites
– E.g. nike.net, for site criticizing Nike labor practices
• Parody and critique– E.g. peta.org for People Eating Tasty Animals
– E.g. walmartsucks.com, guiness-really-sucks.com
![Page 7: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Sources of Law
• Trademark Law– Likelihood of confusion– Dilution– Anti-Cybersquatting
• Administrative Solution– Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
![Page 8: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Anti-Cybersquatting
• Lanham Act § 43(d):– (1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the
owner of a mark … if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person --
• (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark …; and
• (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that -– (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive … is identical or
confusingly similar …
– (II) in the case of a famous mark … is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark.
![Page 9: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Anti-Cybersquatting
• Lanham Act § 43(d):– (1)(B) In determining whether a person has a bad faith
intent … a court may consider factors such as … -• (I) the trademark … rights of the person …
• (II) … consists of a legal name of the person …
• (III) … prior use … with the bona fide offering of goods
• (IV) … bona fide noncommercial or fair use
• (V) … intent to divert consumers … for commercial gain
• (VI) … offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign …
• (VII) … provision of material and misleading false contact info
• (VII) … registration or acquisition of multiple domain names
![Page 10: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Shields v. Zuccarini
![Page 11: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
PETA v. Doughney
![Page 12: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Uniform Dispute Resolution
• Elements– “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark
– “no rights or legitimate interests” in domain name
– domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
• Evidence of Bad Faith– Registered primarily for purpose of sale to tm owner
– Registered in order to prevent tm owner from using
– Registered to disrupt competitor’s business
– Intentionally attempting to attract users to site for commercial gain through likelihood of confusion
![Page 13: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Uniform Dispute Resolution
• Evidence of Legitimate Interest– Prior use of domain name with bona fide offering of goods
– Commonly known by domain name
– Making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark
![Page 14: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Third Party Liability
• Third Party Liability– Contributory Liability
• (i) assist in infringing activity
• (ii) knew or had reason to know of infr. activity
– Vicarious Liability• (i) authority or ability to control other’s behavior
• (ii) direct financial benefit from infringement
![Page 15: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Polo v. Chinatown
![Page 16: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
e-Bay Example
![Page 17: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Third-Party Liability
• Reasons to extend– Facilitate enforcement, lower costs– Third-parties morally culpable– Deter third-parties
• Reasons to limit– Imposes costs on third-parties to monitor– Not always fair to impose burden– Not always most efficient to impose burden
![Page 18: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
False Advertising
• Lanham Act, § 43– (a) Any person who, on or in connection with any
goods or services … uses in commerce any … false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -- …
• (2) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
– shall be liable in a civil action ...
![Page 19: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
J&J v. Smithkline
![Page 20: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Defenses
• Genericness
• Functionality
• Abandonment
• Nominative Use
• Parody
![Page 21: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Murphy Door Bed v. Interior
![Page 22: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Generic?
• Generic– Thermos
– Escalator
– Trampoline
– Cellophane
– Nylon
– Yo-Yo
![Page 23: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Avoiding Genericide
![Page 24: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Administrative
• Next Assignment– Finish Trademark
![Page 25: Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 1, 2009 Trademark – Domain Names](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649d545503460f94a31336/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Exam Details
• Test Details– 24-hour take-home exam– Freely schedulable during regular exam period– Open book– Strict word limits– Past exams on course web page