Read this post.
Can you answer Ron’s question?
Trademark Law
LAW6392 – Professor Randazza – Barry University School of Law – Fall 2008
Terms of Use & Subscribing
Terms of Use
You must read and consent to these terms prior to using, reading, or accessing this site for any reason whatsoever.
Terms & Conditions of Use and Legal Information
Click Here to Subscribe
October 30, 2008 at 1:42 pm |
It’s unfortunate how much a legal education has the potential to suck the entertainment value out of so many things. I used to be able to blissfully enjoy an episode of my favorite cop drama, not batting an eye when the characters discussed who might have “robbed” that house in a suburban neighborhood. Now, I can’t control my urge to yell “BURGLARIZED” at the screen. The reality is that the vast majority of the public couldn’t tell you the difference. Does it inflict any damage on the English language to use it imprecisely? I’m not sure that I can answer that question in the affirmative for every situation. Because language is able to grow and change over time, not every “misuse” should be condemned. Using the word “trademark” as a verb could very well be one such situation.
If “trademark” is used as shorthand to mean “to file an application for federal registration of a trademark,” I don’t really see too much of a problem. It is no different than using “google” to mean “to search the Internet for something.” The problem identified here is not that the word “trademark” has been used improperly as a verb, but that Computerworld’s reporter demonstrates, subsequent to that use, a misunderstanding of what it means to apply for federal registration of a trademark. The author of that article seems to think that Microsoft is prohibited from using AZURE in association with its goods or services without a federal registration. I don’t really see a connection between that fundamental misconception of the law and the “misuse” of “trademark” as a verb. They are two distinct errors, and educating this author about one error will not necessarily fix his understanding of the other.
October 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
It looks like Gregg Keizer doesn’t know that much about trademark law. The problem is that he is probably like most others who hold the misconception that trademark rights grow out of registration rather than use.
I don’t think the system that provides for an “intent to use” application is to blame for this misnomer. An ITU is a bit different than the rights that a mark holder such as Microsoft would enjoy in regards to AZURE. An ITU essentially permits the holder of the ITU application to use the mark in commerce, and obtain registration which will secure a priority date retroactively to the date of filing of the ITU application.
In answering Ron’s first question, I think it would be a great idea for Computerworld to attempt to use a similar mark and find out how important the concept of first use is and that Microsoft does not need to register their trademark in order to enforce their rights.
I suppose an argument can be made that the title “intent to use” might create some confusion among those unfamiliar with trademark law and the filing requirements, however to answer Ron’s second question, I don’t think this procedure is the main cause for the blame.
Lauren Herold
November 10, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
I find the following link relevant to some of the cases that we have recently read concerning “designer-products.” http://www.counterfeitchic.com
FL
November 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm |
Specifically, the nov. 6 entry is relevant to the “scented tree” case that we recently covered in class. FL
November 10, 2008 at 10:44 pm |
Also, the Oct. 28 entry talks about issues raised in our DOPE STAMPS article. FL