AVIS DE DROIT PROTECTION DES SIGNES NATIONAUX
AVIS DE DROIT PROTECTION DES SIGNES NATIONAUX
AVIS DE DROIT PROTECTION DES SIGNES NATIONAUX
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ETATS-UNIS<br />
On a narrower note, federal law also prohibits the use of the flag within the District of<br />
Columbia for commercial purposes, such as advertising or as a feature of a commercial<br />
product. 340 Although the improper use of the national flag outside the District of Columbia<br />
has not been made a federal offense, should Congress wish to assume such control, it has the<br />
power under the Constitution to do so. 341 The vast majority of states have enacted such<br />
statutes 342 .<br />
The determination of whether a proposed mark consists of or comprises a flag, coat of arms or<br />
other insignia must be made "without a careful analysis and side-by-side comparison." The<br />
public should be considered to retain only a general or overall, rather than specific,<br />
recollection of the various elements or characteristics of design marks. 343<br />
"Simulation," as contemplated by §2(b), refers to "something that gives the appearance or<br />
effect or has the characteristics of an original item." 344 Whether a mark comprises a<br />
simulation must be determined from a visual comparison of the mark vis-à-vis replicas of the<br />
flag, coat of arms or other insignia in question. 345 The incorporation in a mark of individual or<br />
distorted features that are merely suggestive of flags, coats of arms or other insignia does not,<br />
however, bar registration under §2(b). 346<br />
The Trademark Act distinguishes between flags, coats of arms and insignias, on the one<br />
hand, and other national symbols, on the other. As noted in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,<br />
185 F. Supp. at 908, 127 USPQ at 323:<br />
340<br />
4 U.S.C. § 3 available at: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html#5 .<br />
341<br />
34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483 (1925).<br />
342<br />
See §2c “droit regional” infra.<br />
343<br />
In re Advance Industrial Security, Inc., 194 USPQ 344, 346 (TTAB 1977) (ADVANCE SECURITY<br />
and design consisting of an eagle on a triangular shield, in gold and brown, for detective and<br />
investigative services and providing security systems and services, found registrable, the Board<br />
stating, "When the mark of the applicant and the Coat of Arms or Great Seal of the United States are<br />
compared in their entireties, it is adjudged that applicant's mark does not consist of or comprise the<br />
Coat of Arms of the United States or any simulation thereof ....").<br />
344<br />
In re Waltham Watch Co., 179 USPQ 59, 60 (TTAB 1973) (mark consisting of wording and the<br />
design of a globe and six flags for watches found registrable, the Board stating, "[A]lthough the flags<br />
depicted in applicant's mark incorporate common elements of flag designs such as horizontal or<br />
vertical lines, crosses or stars, they are readily distinguishable from any of the flags of the nations<br />
alluded to by the examiner. In fact, applicant's mark would be regarded as nothing more than a<br />
conglomeration of nondescript flags utilized to symbolize the significance of the globe design and the<br />
slogan 'TIMING THE WORLD' appearing thereon.")<br />
345<br />
Id.<br />
346<br />
See Knorr-Nahrmittel A.G. v. Havland International, Inc., 206 USPQ 827, 833 (TTAB 1980) (While<br />
applicant originally may have intended to include the flags of the Scandinavian countries in the mark,<br />
NOR-KING and design, "[a]ll that the record reflects is that the mark contains a representation of<br />
certain flags, but not the flag or flags of any particular nation." Opposer's cause of action under §2(b)<br />
found to be without merit; opposition sustained on other grounds); In re National Van Lines, Inc., 123<br />
USPQ 510 (TTAB 1959) (mark comprising words and the design of a shield with vertical stripes held<br />
registrable, the Board finding the design to be readily distinguishable from the shield of the Great<br />
Seal of the United States and, therefore, not a simulation of the seal or any portion thereof); In re<br />
American Box Board Co., 123 USPQ 508 (TTAB 1959) (design mark comprising an eagle and shield<br />
held registrable, the Board finding that it did not involve a simulation of the Great Seal of the United<br />
States because the eagle and shield of applicant's mark differed substantially from those on the seal in<br />
both appearance and manner of display).<br />
208