Analysis Of Trademark And Copyright Violations
I. TRADEMARK VIOLATIONS
Trademarks are distinctive signs, logos, words, or symbols used to identify goods or services and distinguish them from others. Trademark violations occur when unauthorized parties use similar marks that may cause confusion, dilution, or misrepresentation.
Key Principles of Trademark Law
Likelihood of Confusion
Courts often assess whether consumers are likely to be confused about the origin of goods/services.
Dilution
Even without confusion, unauthorized use may weaken a famous mark’s distinctiveness.
Passing Off
Using a mark to misrepresent the source of goods is actionable even if no registration exists.
Trademark Infringement
Unauthorized use of a registered trademark in commerce is prohibited.
Key Trademark Cases
1. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961)
Facts:
Polarad Electronics used the mark “Polarad,” which Polaroid claimed infringed its trademark.
Court Reasoning:
Established the Polaroid factors for likelihood of confusion:
Strength of the mark
Similarity of marks
Proximity of products
Evidence of actual confusion
Intent of the alleged infringer
Quality of defendant’s product
Sophistication of consumers
Outcome:
Court found infringement due to high likelihood of confusion.
Significance:
Standardized the likelihood-of-confusion test, still widely cited.
2. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)
Facts:
Qualitex used a unique green-gold color for its dry-cleaning pads. Jacobson used a similar color.
Court Reasoning:
Color alone can be trademarked if it has acquired distinctiveness.
Use by a competitor may cause consumer confusion.
Outcome:
Jacobson’s use of the color violated Qualitex’s trademark rights.
Significance:
Expanded non-traditional trademarks to include colors and packaging.
3. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003)
Facts:
Victoria’s Secret sued a store called “Victor’s Secret” for dilution.
Court Reasoning:
For dilution claims, plaintiff must prove actual dilution, not just likelihood.
Outcome:
Court ruled for the defendant because Victoria’s Secret could not show evidence of actual dilution.
Significance:
Clarified burden of proof for trademark dilution cases.
4. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992)
Facts:
Taco Cabana sued Two Pesos for copying the restaurant’s trade dress.
Court Reasoning:
Trade dress (overall look/appearance) can be protected without proof of secondary meaning if inherently distinctive.
Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of Taco Cabana.
Significance:
Reinforced protection of non-verbal trademarks and trade dress.
*5. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity Dog, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)
Facts:
Louis Vuitton sued a company making “Chewy Vuiton” dog toys.
Court Reasoning:
Courts weighed parody defense against dilution and confusion.
Determined that parody for humor or commentary may not infringe if unlikely to cause consumer confusion.
Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of Haute Diggity Dog due to clear parody.
Significance:
Highlights parody as a defense in trademark infringement.
II. COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
Copyright protects original works of authorship, including literary, artistic, musical, and software works. Copyright violations occur when someone reproduces, distributes, performs, or displays a work without authorization.
Key Principles of Copyright Law
Originality
Work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium.
Exclusive Rights
Copying, derivative works, distribution, public display/performance.
Fair Use
Exceptions for criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, research, parody.
Infringement
Occurs if any exclusive right is violated without a valid defense.
Key Copyright Cases
1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
Facts:
Feist copied names from Rural Telephone’s directory.
Court Reasoning:
Facts themselves are not copyrightable; compilation must involve original creativity.
Outcome:
Rural Telephone lost; Feist not liable.
Significance:
Defined originality standard in copyright law.
2. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
Facts:
2 Live Crew created a parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman” without permission.
Court Reasoning:
Parody may constitute fair use even for commercial purposes.
Courts weigh purpose, nature, amount used, and market effect.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew.
Significance:
Strengthened parody as a defense to copyright infringement.
3. A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
Facts:
Napster allowed users to share copyrighted music online.
Court Reasoning:
Napster induced infringement and had knowledge of widespread copyright violations.
Outcome:
Court ruled Napster liable; service shut down.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing liability of intermediaries for copyright infringement.
4. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005)
Facts:
Song sampled a 2-second guitar riff from another song.
Court Reasoning:
Any unauthorized sampling constitutes infringement, regardless of length.
Outcome:
Ruling against Dimension Films.
Significance:
Emphasized zero-tolerance approach to unauthorized sampling in music.
5. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021)
Facts:
Google copied Java API code to develop Android.
Court Reasoning:
Court ruled copying was fair use due to transformative nature, minimal impact on market, and public benefit.
Outcome:
Oracle lost; Google allowed to use API code.
Significance:
Clarified fair use in software and transformative works.
III. SYNTHESIS AND LESSONS
Trademark Law:
Protects consumer confusion and brand identity.
Non-traditional marks (color, trade dress) are protected.
Parody may be a valid defense.
Copyright Law:
Protects creative works; originality is key.
Fair use allows commentary, parody, and transformative works.
Liability can extend to intermediaries (e.g., online platforms).
General Observations:
Courts balance protection of rights with freedom of expression and competition.
Enforcement depends on proof of intent, likelihood of confusion, or market harm.
International trends increasingly harmonize protections for IP rights.
RELATED Blog
comments