The basic legal right you have in your trademark is to prevent others from using the same or a confusingly similar mark to identify the source of their goods or services where this would cause confusion in the mind of consumers. Acquiring trademark rights is relatively simple: all you must do is begin using your mark in commerce. This makes sense because trademark law protects those marks that identify the source of the goods or services in the mind of consumers. The mark must be used in commerce in order for consumers to be aware of it and to make the connection between the mark and your goods or services.
The first user of a mark is usually given priority of rights. For instance, if you federally register your mark and your competitor did not, your competitor might still be able to sue you for trademark infringement if your competitor began using the mark first. If, however, a foreign company is the first to use a mark exclusively outside the U.S., our trademark law will generally not give that company trademark rights over a later user of a similar mark in the U.S.
A) State Law
Trademark law consists of both state law (often comprised of “common law”) and federal law. Under state law, use of a mark confers trademark rights. These rights extend to the geographic area where the mark is used and where the reputation of the mark extends. Some states extend the geographic reach of trademark protection under the “Zone of Expansion” doctrine, which recognizes that a business will likely enter into broader geographic areas in the future, and thereby presently extends trademark protection to such areas.
You can enforce your trademark rights using your state’s unfair competition laws. These laws give you the right to sue for infringement (or “passing off”) or dilution. Infringement occurs when a competitor uses a mark that will likely cause confusion in the mind of the consumers as to the source of the goods or services. For example, if you began selling “Crestor” brand toothpaste, this would infringe on the trademark for “Crest” brand toothpaste because such a similar name would cause confusion in the minds of the consumers.
Dilution, on the other hand, takes on two forms: blurring and tarnishment. For either form, a dilution action is only available for those marks that have become sufficiently “famous.”
Blurring occurs when a competitor’s mark weakens the association in the mind of the consumers between your mark and the source of your goods or services. For example, if someone began selling “Viagra” brand tennis rackets, the association between “Viagra” and the little, blue pill would become weakened in the minds of the consumers.
Tarnishment occurs when a competitor’s mark creates a negative association in the minds of the consumers between your mark and the source of your goods or services. For example, if someone began selling “Sony” brand personal enemas, a negative association would form in the minds of consumers regarding the mark “Sony.”
Based on the examples above, you can see that dilution usually occurs when the two products in question are very different. The crucial thing to remember is that with dilution, consumers are not confused about the source of the goods or services, like with infringement. For instance, consumers would not be confused into thinking that Pfizer started making “Viagra” brand tennis shoes. Instead, the quick association of a famous mark with its product is attenuated. Another difference between dilution and infringement is that a dilution claim usually requires proof of the actual impact on the mind of consumers; whereas, an infringement claim usually requires proof of mere likelihood of confusion.
B) Federal Law
Federal trademark law is codified in the Lanham Act at 15 USC §§ 1051–1128. Much like state law, federal law gives you the right to prevent competitors from using your mark or a similar mark, so long as you can prove that their mark is likely to cause confusion in the mind of the consumers. Because these cases turn on “likelihood of confusion,” federal case law has established several areas of inquiry that will aid a court’s analysis of this issue:
1) The similarity of marks;
2) The respective “channels of trade” of the parties;
3) The similarity of the goods or services;
4) The sophistication of the relevant consumers;
5) Evidence of actual confusion;
6) The alleged infringer’s intent; and
7) The strength of the plaintiff’s mark.
See AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).
Like state law, federal law also gives trademark holders the right to pursue a dilution action. See the Federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act at 15 USC § 1125(c). A plaintiff in a federal dilution action must prove that 1) the plaintiff’s mark is “famous,” 2) the defendant used its mark in commerce after the plaintiff’s mark became famous, and 3) the defendant’s use of its mark has caused dilution by blurring or tarnishment. Federal dilution protection extends only to “famous” marks, which makes sense because only well-known marks have the potential to be diluted in the mind of the consumers. Federal law also provides an injunction remedy.
For more information on your state and federal trademark rights, please contact my law offices at email@example.com!