1. THE PURPOSE OF TRADEMARK LAW
“[i]s to reduce the cost of
information to consumers by making it easy for them to identify the products or
producers with which they have had either good experiences, so that they want
to keep buying the product … or bad experiences so that they want to avoid the
product or the producer in the future.“. W.T. Rogers Co.
v. Keene, 778
F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1985).
2. DEGREE OF USE REQUIRED FOR TRADEMARK PROTECTION
trademark rights there has to be an "open" use, that is to say, a use
has to be made to the relevant class of purchasers or prospective purchasers
since a trademark is intended to identify goods and distinguish those goods
from those manufactured or sold by others. There was no such "open"
use rather the use can be said to be an "internal" use, which cannot
give rise to trademark rights [in Farah’s sending 12 pairs of slacks to its
regional sales managers]. … The gist of trademark rights is actual use
in trade. … Though technically a "sale", the … shipment was not
"publicly distributed" within the purview of the Texas statute.”Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Mnfg. Co.,
Inc., 508 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir.1975).
3. DISTINCTIVENESS OF TRADEMARKS
“We disagree … that [distinction between suggestive and descriptive
marks] is a distinction without a difference, although it is often a difficult
distinction to draw and is, undoubtedly, often made on an intuitive basis
rather than as the result of a logical analysis susceptible of articulation.
This only emphasizes the need to give due respect to the determinations of the
patent office if the distinction is to be drawn in a consistent manner.” Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready
Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th
4. IMPERMISSIBLE DECEPTIVE MARKS
“[A mark is deceptive] when an essential and material
element is misrepresented, is distinctly false, and is the very element upon
which the customer relies in purchasing one product over another.” Gold Seal Co. v. Weeks, 129 F.Supp. 928
REQUEST YOUR CONSULTATION TODAY!