intellectual property boston college law school april 14, 2008 trademark – genericide,...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
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