16.05.2014 Views

Patent It Yourself - PDF Archive

Patent It Yourself - PDF Archive

Patent It Yourself - PDF Archive

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ChaPter 1 | INTRODUCTION to PATENTS and Other INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY | 19<br />

trade or company name, while Ivory is a trademark, that is,<br />

a brand name for Procter & Gamble’s white soap. However,<br />

the media often refer to trademarks as trade names. Also,<br />

many companies such as Ford, use the same words as a<br />

trade name and a trademark, so the difference sometimes<br />

becomes academic.<br />

Trademarks, such as Ivory, enjoy offensive rights under<br />

both federal and state trademark laws. The trade name<br />

Procter & Gamble, however, enjoys offensive rights primarily<br />

under state law (corporation registrations, fictitious name<br />

registrations, and unfair competition law). However, a federal<br />

law can also be used to slap down a trade-name infringement<br />

as a “false designation of origin” (17 USC 1125).<br />

2. Monopoly Rights of a Trademark Owner<br />

Briefly, the owner of a trademark may or may not be entitled<br />

to legal offensive rights depending on how distinctive (or<br />

strong) the law considers the trademark. Trademarks that<br />

are arbitrary (Elephant floppy disks), fanciful (Double<br />

Rainbow ice cream), or coined terms (Kodak) are considered<br />

strong, and thus entitled to a relatively broad scope of<br />

offensive rights. On the other hand, marks that describe<br />

some function or characteristic of the product (such as<br />

“RapidCompute computers” or “Relieve<strong>It</strong>” for an analgesic)<br />

are considered weaker and won’t enjoy as broad a scope of<br />

offensive rights. Although the above differences may seem<br />

somewhat arbitrary, they really aren’t. The courts give fanciful,<br />

coined, or other arbitrary marks a stronger and broader<br />

monopoly than descriptive marks because descriptive marks<br />

come close to words in common usage and the law protects<br />

everyone’s right to use these. Also, the owner of a “famous”<br />

mark can prevent anyone from diluting the mark—that<br />

is, blurring or tarnishing its distinctiveness—even if the<br />

diluting mark is not used on similar goods or services.<br />

In addition to the strong/weak mark dichotomy, trademark<br />

owners may be denied offensive rights if the<br />

trademark becomes commonly used to describe an entire<br />

class of products, that is, it becomes “generic.” For example,<br />

“aspirin,” once a trademark that enjoyed strong offensive<br />

rights, became a generic word (no offensive rights) for any<br />

type of over-the-counter painkiller using a certain chemical.<br />

Why? Because its owner used it improperly as a noun (such as<br />

“Buy Aspirin”) rather than as a proper adjective (such as “Buy<br />

Aspirin (brand) analgesic”), and the public therefore came to<br />

view it as synonymous with the product it described.<br />

3. Relationship of Trademark Law to <strong>Patent</strong> Law<br />

As indicated above, trademarks are very useful in<br />

conjunction with inventions, whether patentable or not.<br />

A clever trademark can be used with an invention to<br />

provide it with a unique aspect in the market place so that<br />

purchasers will tend to buy the trademarked product over<br />

a generic one. For example, consider the Crock Pot slow<br />

cooker, Ivory soap, and the Hula Hoop exercise device.<br />

These trademarks helped make all of these products<br />

successful and market leaders even though they were not<br />

granted any basic patent. In short, a trademark provides<br />

brand-name recognition to the product and a patent<br />

provides a tool to enforce a monopoly on its utilitarian<br />

function. Since trademark rights can be kept forever (as long<br />

as the trademark continues to be used), a trademark can<br />

be a powerful means of effectively extending a monopoly<br />

initially created by a patent.<br />

4. Overview of How Offensive Rights<br />

to Trademarks Are Acquired<br />

Here’s a list of steps you should take if you come up with<br />

a trademark and you want to acquire offensive rights to it<br />

and use it properly. Because this is a patent book, I haven’t<br />

covered this topic in detail.<br />

a. Preserve Your Mark as a Trade<br />

Secret Until You Use <strong>It</strong><br />

As I explain in Subsection d, below, you must take certain<br />

actions before you can acquire offensive rights in a mark.<br />

This means that during the developmental stage you must<br />

treat your trademark as a trade secret so that others won’t<br />

adopt your proposed mark and use it first. (See Section Q,<br />

below, for an overview of acquiring offensive rights to trade<br />

secrets.)<br />

b. Make Sure the Mark Isn’t Generic or Descriptive<br />

Ask yourself if the mark is generic or descriptive. A generic<br />

mark is a word or other symbol that the public already uses<br />

to designate the goods or service on which you want to use<br />

the mark. Thus you can’t acquire offensive rights on “The<br />

Pill” for a birth-control pill, since it’s already a generic term.<br />

A descriptive mark is similar to a generic mark in that it<br />

describes the goods, but hasn’t yet gotten into widespread<br />

public use. For instance, if you came up with a new electric<br />

fork, you cannot acquire offensive rights in the mark<br />

Electric Fork, since it merely describes the product.<br />

c. Make Sure Your Mark Isn’t Already in Use<br />

<strong>It</strong>’s essential to select a mark that is not in use by someone<br />

else. The goodwill you develop around the mark may go<br />

up in smoke in the event of a trademark infringement

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!