Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The use of investigations to uncover and evaluate potential infringement and unfair competition claims can be an extremely effective weapon for any trademark owner. Usually, a key to successful trademark investigations rests in having the mark owner's investigator pose as an ordinary consumer ' essentially misrepresenting his or her true identity or purpose to the potential infringer. This practice of attempting to gain information through the arguable use of deception or invented scenario is now commonly referred to as 'pretexting' and has led to controversy in the general corporate context. This article concludes that properly conducted and supervised pretext investigations remain in harmony with both the relevant case law and the policy goals of trademark and unfair competition law.
Considerations in Utilizing Pretext Investigations
Pretexting practices employed in trademark infringement investigations differ from other investigations in that they typically only seek to obtain information that would tend to be available to any ordinary customer of the infringer. Thus, the methods employed by trademark investigators tend to mimic consumer interactions by, inter alia, posing as a customer seeking the potential infringer's goods or services through telephone calls or visits to the infringer's business, or through the simple purchase of the products or services at issue. It is significant, therefore, that when a trademark owner employs such deception, the ultimate goal of the investigation is strictly in line with the same broad policy goals that underlie all trademark and unfair competition law ' namely, consumer welfare. The trademark owner can justify its investigative pretext as necessary to protect the consuming public from deception or confusion in the marketplace, protection that can only be accomplished by stepping into the shoes of the ordinary consumer.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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 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.
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?