The Intellectual Property Strategist

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

…

Features

Antitrust law has long prohibited producers with market power from engaging in tying arrangements, agreements in which the sale of a highly desired "tying" product is conditioned on the purchase of a second item. The Supreme Court has held that sellers must exert power over the marketplace to be guilty of illegal tying under the Sherman Act. Does the existence of a patent on a product create a presumption of market power? On June 20, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in <i>Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.</i>, 2005 WL 770269, *1 (U.S.) (2005) to consider this question.

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

A trademark identifies the source of a particular good or service, and trademark law seeks to protect against a third party's use of a mark that "is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" as to source. 15 U.S.C. '1114(1). That is, certain aspects of trademark law "preven[t] producers from free-riding on their rivals' marks." <i>New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc.</i>, 971 F.2d 302, 305, (9th Cir. 1992).

Is willfulness a prerequisite for recovering a defendant's profits under 35 U.S.C. &sect;1117(a) for infringing a registered mark or for violations under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act? Maybe. It depends on the circuit in which the case is decided, but it shouldn't. The substantive rights and remedies under the Lanham Act should be uniformly interpreted throughout the nation. This is especially so with respect to monetary remedies in view of the Trademark Amendments Act of 1999, which should have, but did not, resolve this issue.

&#133;

Features

Under U.S. law, the resale of imported genuine goods bearing a valid U.S. trademark generally does not constitute trademark infringement. This is in part because, under the first sale doctrine, the trademark protections under U.S. law can be exhausted after the trademark owner's first authorized sale anywhere of the product bearing the trademark. Thus, U.S. law does not generally preclude the sale of identical genuine goods bearing a legitimate trademark even if the sale in the United States is unauthorized by the trademark owner.