Trademark Regulations and the Likelihood of Confusion test for trademarks of Similar Sounding Characters!

The analysis of trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion is really a question of the nature and character of the mark and the commercial impression it creates in the minds of the consumer.  First, and foremost, a trademark has to be a known word in the English language to be pronounced as a word in the English language.  Also, in order to ensure that a trademark is pronounced properly in a foreign language or under the doctrine of foreign equivalence–the mark must actually be a known word in some language before there is anything to do with pronouncing a word properly.

For example, the word STON and the word STONE although similar in appearance are not pronounced in the exact same way.  In fact, it is important for you to first, recognize what the word is as either, a slang term or an actual English or foreign dictionary with slang translations.  If there are any other similarities in appearance, the appearance must be consistent with the official English or Foreign language translations before the words can be considered similar with respect to their actual appearance.  Although there may be some chance that someone mistakenly assumes that the STON mark is the same in appearance as the STONE mark, the reality is the commercial appearance and impression of the marks in the marketplace is what controls.

Otherwise, the consumers will recognize that STON as used in the marketplace is not even a recognized word and not pronounce it in the same way as the actual English word of STONE.  Thus, you cannot utilize definitions that are consistent with the English language for something that is not an actual known word.  Moreover, to apply the doctrine of foreign equivalence the word must be an actual foreign word to be considered to be the equivalent of the English equivalent.  It will not be considered a foreign word if, it does not have the same characters as a known foreign word.  Moreover, the mark STON has no foreign equivalents, thus, there is no way for any of the definitions or translations STONE to be used to provide an equivalent meaning for STON.

For more go to:   13-1448.Opinion.7-14-2014.1

The Use of Disclaimers in the Context of Trademark Infringement Online!

The value of trademarks and trademark portfolios is in the ability to develop an online brand, increase your SEO ranking, and developing a good key word optimization site that allows you to acquire more online visitors than your competitors.  This is not the easiest thing to do, in light of, how often Google changes the webmaster policies or rules.  Moreover, the nature of organic search results is such that it does not stay constant, but is fluid–these organic searches that are performed by consumers are not going to be the same each month, quarter or year.

In addition, the use of disclaimers for trademark infringement you must be careful to ensure that your competitor is not able to diminish the effectiveness of the disclaimer by placing it in less visible area of the website.  If you are not careful the fees and expenses incurred or spent on a preliminary injunction will be wasted.  It is difficult to judge the effectiveness of a disclaimer, but the more prominent the disclaimer and the less likely it will be easily avoided by a consumer by clicking through a link or special portal the better off you will be as an online business operator.

If you take the time to develop a content rich website and develop a good SEO optimization strategy, then you want to ensure that it is adequately protected.   More importantly, if you expend the funds in acquiring a disclaimer to remedy consumer confusion, then you must make sure that at least the following is done:

1) the disclaimer is prominent in relation to the remaining content on the website;

2) the disclaimer is bolded, italicized, font and color are actually large and vibrant enough to ensure that it is easy for a consumer to find;

3) moreover, the disclaimer must be from a click through portal that requires the consumer to acknowledge that each has read and viewed the disclaimer;

4) also, the disclaimer must be such that it is only, avoidable after the issue of initial interest confusion has be resolved; and

5) the disclaimer is not subject to alteration or modification by online search robots.

This is a common concern in most trademark infringement matters or opinions in recent cases.  Often times, lawyers do their clients a disservice by winning the preliminary judgment hearing and failing to take the time to craft an appropriate disclaimer or include the appropriate language in the Judge’s Order.  See the following:  International Kennel Club, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc and Std. Process, Inc. v. Banks, 554 F. Supp Std. Process, Inc. v. Banks

Gallery

Copyright Infringement Lawsuits-Defense of Infringement, Declaratory Judgments, and Recovery of Legal Expenses and Fees!

In defending against the Copyright Infringement Lawsuit, many times the ability of the defendant or plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action plays a significant role in protecting and preventing copyright trolls and frivolous infringement claims.  The enactment of the Digital … Continue reading

Rate this:

Gallery

Attorneys’ Fees and Business, Civil and Commercial Litigation: What can be released and what cannot?

In an interesting Ruling from the IL First District Appellate Court, a panel found that it was not possible for the parties to a divorce proceeding to contractually waive the attorneys’ right to legal fees or file a fee petition. … Continue reading

Rate this: