Copyright Law
> What Can Be Protected as a Trademark?
- Trademarks, Trade Names and Service Marks
- Colors, Fragrances, and Sounds
- Certification and Collective Marks
- Trade Dress and Product Configurations
> Establishment of Trademark Rights
- Distinctiveness
- Priority
- Trademark Office Procedures
- Incontestability
- The Requirement of Trademark Use
- Likelihood of Consumer Confusion
- Dilution
- Extension by Contract: Franchising and Merchandising
- Domain Names and Cybersquatting
- Contributory Infringement
- False Advertising
[On Page 723, insert before "Comments and Questions"]
North American Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2008)
[On Page 740, replace Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc. with:]
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)
[On Page 778, insert:]
Tiffany, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 4607 (RJS), 2008 WL 2755787 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).
> What Can Be Protected as a Trademark?
- Functionality
- Abandonment
- Genericness
- Nontrademark ("Nominative") Use
- Parody
> International Issues in Trademark
On November 4, 2002, the president signed the Patent and Trademark Reauthorization Act of 2002 (H.R. 2215, Part B, Title III; Pub. L. 107-273; 116 Stat. 1758 (2002)), which contained, inter alia, several separate intellectual property bills.
The "Patent and Trademark Authorization Act of 2002" (Subtitle A) significantly amends the reexamination process. H.R. 2215 broadens the scope of prior art to be considered in the reexamination process, allowing previously cited ("old") prior art to be considered. Previously, prior art which was cited, but ignored or misread by the PTO, could not be considered in reexamination; only "new" prior art, not previously cited, could be considered. "The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office." [Sec. 13105.]
H.R. 2215 also significantly expands the ability of third parties to appeal patent reexaminations. Previously, third-party requesters' appeals were limited to Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, an administrative agency. H.R. 2215 allows third party requesters to appeal to the Federal Circuit. [Sec. 13106.] Subtitle A additionally requires the PTO to develop and implement a comprehensive electronic filing and processing system, already well under way. The "Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002" (Subtitle B) clarifies the Office's policy on prior art rejections stemming from international applications and publications. More information on Subtitle B is available from the US PTO website.
> Remedies
- Injunctions
- Damages
.