Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Proper Notice of Trademark Rights: Using Trademark Symbols for Three-Dimensional Packaging and Product Designs
Among the most common questions trademark attorneys are asked is what the differences are between the symbols ®, TM, and SM. When should such symbols should be used? Where should they appear? How frequently? Do they even need to be used at all?
For most trademarks, the answers will usually be the same: ® refers to a federally registered mark, and can only be used in connection with a mark that is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; TM and SM refer to "trademark" and "service mark," respectively. TM is used for brand names for products and SM for services. These two symbols are typically used when the mark is not federally registered (but may be used with federally registered marks). All three of these symbols are designed to place the public on notice of the scope of rights claimed by the trademark owner.
As for how the symbols should be used, the Lanham Act does not require any specific placement, and does not mention use of the "TM" or "SM" notices. It only indicates that the registration symbol should be used "with the mark." 15 U.S.C. §1111. In practice, owners of word and design marks typically place a trademark symbol directly after the mark in superscript (e.g., Gibson®). The general rule is that a registration symbol should be used with the first and most prominent placement of a mark in any given advertisement or other space where a mark is displayed.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.