Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Use It or Lose It: Can Residual Goodwill Avert Abandonment?
The notorious legal battle over the right to use the MUSTANG RANCH trademark for legal brothel services illustrates the 'use it or lose it' adage as applied to trademark rights and the difficulty of establishing an excuse for nonuse. Burgess v. Gilman, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1773 (D. Nev. 2006). Because U.S. law does not permit the warehousing of trademarks, the owner of a trademark typically must use the mark in commerce or lose the ability to prevent others from using it. For this reason, '8 of the Lanham Act requires trademark owners to file a declaration of use between the fifth and sixth year after registration and with renewals. 15 U.S.C. '1058.
Under '8, if the owner of a registration has temporarily ceased use of the mark due to circumstances beyond the owner's control, the owner 'must file an affidavit setting forth those goods or services in connection with which the mark is not in use in commerce and showing that any such nonuse is due to special circumstances which excuse such nonuse and is not due to any intention to abandon the mark.' 15 U.S.C. '1058(b) (emphasis added). 'Excusable nonuse' of a mark is difficult to prove. The owner of the mark must 'set forth the date when use of the mark in commerce stopped and the approximate date when use is expected to resume; and recite facts to show that nonuse as to those goods and services is due to special circumstances.' 37 C.F.R. '2.161(e)(2) (emphasis added). The owner must also 'specify the reason for nonuse, the specific steps being taken to put the mark back in use and any other relevant facts.' Trademark Manual of Examining Procedures '1604.11.
Circumstances that may excuse nonuse include a trade embargo, sale of a business, retooling of a plant or equipment essential to the production of the goods if no alternative equipment is available, intermittent production of large-ticket items such as airplanes that have been ordered but cannot be produced quickly or in large numbers, or fire or other catastrophe affecting the owner.
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?