Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is 'No Use' Always a 'Fair Use'?
In order to avoid liability for trademark infringement relating to the sale of keywords corresponding to trademarks, search engines, including Google, are attacking the concept that trademark owners should be able to protect the 'commercial magnetism' of their marks. Recently, in Rescue.com v. Google, Inc., No. 5:04-CV-1056 (N.D.N.Y.), Google argued that the trademark laws 'are not meant to protect consumer good will [sic] created through extensive, skillful, and costly advertising.' Google's Reply Brief at 4 n.4 (2005) (citing Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir. 1968)).
At issue in Rescue.com is the current business practice of allowing advertisers to purchase particular search terms to generate what are typically labeled as 'sponsored links.' Rescue.com alleged Google infringed its trademark by allowing and advising a rival computer service company to buy Rescue.com's trademark as a keyword. As a result, Rescue.com alleged, Google users contacted Rescue.com's competitor under the mistaken impression that the competitor was associated with Rescue.com. Google's position is that its conduct does not involve a 'trademark use' and therefore is beyond the reach of the Lanham Act.
This argument challenges the very core of trademark law's purpose and boldly contradicts Justice Felix Frankfurter's trademark law primer in Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203, 205 (1942) concerning the place of trademark protection in the modern economy:
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?