Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Topics on Intellectual property
Limitations on intellectual property protection
Intellectual property
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Topics on Intellectual property
The World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual property is the ‘products of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, any symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce’. Intellectual Properties such as Patents, designs, trademarks and copyrights are protected by laws .The US government offers different types of protection for these properties. The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.A. section 1051 et seq) also known as the trademark act of 1946 provides protection for trademarks. A trademark is defined as a name, a word, a symbol, or device or any combination thereof, adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured and sold by others. (Miaoulis 1978) Over the years, many companies such as scrabble, Tylenol, Channel, Louis Vuitton and even Polo Ralph Lauren (PRL) Corporation have had to fight to protect their intellectual property. By looking more specifically into Polo Ralph Lauren, a fashion company that offers a range of products from clothing to home furnishings, this paper will explore trademark laws and how these laws could be advantageous one hand and limit one group and limit business abilities on another. PRL USA Holdings, Inc. is the owner and licensor of Polo Ralph Lauren corporation trademarks which include the polo player logo, the term “POLO”, and other words, names and symbols that relate to PRL’s fragrances and other products. Since 1984, many trademark infringement cases have been brought to the court concerning the U.S. Polo Association, Inc. also known as the “USPA” in regards to their infringement of PRLs trademarks. The USPA is also the association for the sport of polo in the USA since 1890.Even though these two companies ha... ... middle of paper ... ...elated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) has not only made it easier for companies to register their trademark in one country or another but it has also extended their level of protection against competitors or counterfeiters. Through the USPA and Polo Ralph Lauren litigations that have spanned for more than 20 years and the South Africa polo example, we can easily see the advantages and limits to Intellectual Property laws. As a famous fashion company, PRL is now protected by many laws across the globe. SA polo would not have been able to operate if their case had happened in this age of globalization. But even with extensive market research and studies, a registered trademark can easily bring a company out of business. Will USPA ever be able to bring products to the market that will not generate confusion in the market and/or infringe PRL’s trademark?
v. VIP Prods., LLC 666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (Mo., 2008) Anheuser-Busch makes a distinction between confusing and non-confusing parodies, the latter being protected as a parody. The important factors in the case were that the price point of the products was the same, they were directly competing goods and the survey showed that there was a level of confusion (30.3% were confused), in addition, consideration was placed on irreparable harm caused by the defendants use of the mark, the priority lay with the first to register the trademark, lastly the District Court considered public interest, i.e. whether the public was deceived. Similarly in Starbucks Corp v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc., 588 F3d 97 (2d Cir. 2007) the court distinguished Louis Vuitton S.A. v Haute Diggty Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) by holding that if (as in the Louis Vuitton case), the mark is used in non-competing goods, the defendant conveyed that it was not the source of the plaintiffs product and if the actual use of the mark does not impair the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark there may be an argument in favor of the defendant, however, if the defendant’s humor is not conveyed to the public, and does not increase the public identification of the plaintiff’s mark with its mark it will fail to establish
In the 1998 Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law Review, Michael J. Mrvica argues that The National Basketball Association v. Motorola represents a type of intellectual property conflict. Intellectual property rights attributes to someone’s rights in intangible things. The intellectual property rights are in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. The thesis of this article being, “The expansion of intellectual property law, and the rights afforded therein, has created complex litigation.”
Only 10% of Dick’s revenues are attributable to their sales through private brands (Dick’s Annual Report, 5). While that is a relatively low percetange of revenues, Dick’s makes a much larger margin on their private brands than they do on selling the products of other companies, despite charging lower prices than Nike, Under Armour and LuluLemon. Pursuing further development within the private label sphere, Dick’s could reduce the dependence on national brands and establish a stable revenue stream for long term profitability. The private label brands could also gain more control over other products especially in terms of size, package design, and distribution. Moreover, with fast trend cycles and changes in customer preferences, it is easier to adjust product assortment to these cycles when dealing with private
Businesses filing the claim must also show that the business use of the trademark is expected to cause uncertainty as to the association, relationship or the affiliation among them. To establish a violation of the Lanham Act for either a registered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, or an unregistered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion.( A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir.
In the absence of registered trade mark rights, case law suggests as a general principle, that mere similarity of goods is not enough for an actionable wrong to occur. Passing off derives from the common law action deceit which is the civil action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Passing off is a non-statutory cause of action that has developed over the years through case law and has changed considerably overtime. Passing off came into existence long before trademarks became registerable and has always been available at common law for marks refused registration, not registered or ineligible for
5) Gorman, K. (2011, November 6). What’s Red and Blue and Litigated All Over? Louboutin, Tiffany, and the Future of Trademarked Colors. Columbia Business Law Review Whats Red and Blue and Litigated All Over Louboutin Tiffany and the Future of Trademarked Colors Comments. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://cblr.columbia.edu/archives/1186
These trademarks and patents do not protect the creative side of their designs enough. To clarify, patents, trademarks, and copyrights are specifically different. Trademarks are distinctive marks, names, and/or logos used to distinguish a product, which enable consumers to identify an item as the designer's work. They can be renewed unlimitedly, but a trademark does not protect the overall design. Trademark law therefore offers relatively little protection against copyists as opposed to counterfeiters. Patents protect functional expressions of an idea – not the idea itself. Copyrights protect the specific creative expression of an idea through any medium of artistic/creative expression
After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, legislation of Trademark Law of People’s Republic of China (collectively “Trademark Law”) has gone through significant changes to reach the present framework. The regulations promulgated in 1963 amended the previous version, which linked trademark use with product quality control. The modern trade mark regime which has emerged in China began with the introduction of a new trademark law in 1982. This was the most comprehensive to date and served to accommodate many concerns of China’s new foreign investors. In 1993, the Trademark Law was amended.
The competitive forces compared to competitors in the industry are strong. There are twenty five major competitors involved in the sportswear and apparel industry, which can be found throughout different geographic locations across the world. In addition, competitors are constantly looking for new and innovative products that are priced accurately. Competitors in the sportswear and apparel industry are very involved when it comes to sponsoring events and endorsing athletes. Competitors create contracts with sports teams that are classified as professional, college, and non -professional teams. It is not uncommon to see companies such as Under Armour, Nike, and Adidas
Each area of the law is separate and in large part specific to one kind of intellectual property only. For example, patent law protects inventions, such as your calculator, but not works of art, such as an original pa...
A trademark can be an essential platform for strengthening a company’s goodwill. A trademark entails any symbol, word, or phrase that can be identified with firm’s products and services. These items might be qualified as trademarks when they gain a signifying meaning among the company’s customer base (Maggs and Schechter 4). Nonetheless, the misuse of this proprietary asset can result in lack of legal protection and confusion among customers since it might be difficult to deduce the origin and identity of a particular product. As such, some companies have resorted to unconventional means of protecting their trademarks. This paper will discuss the trademark problems facing the assigned case study of VELCRO with reference to relevant statutory
Other sport brands w... ... middle of paper ... ... rea, Seoul, Jan. 1999. [27] Case Study, "Cas Benetton", p. 10, taken from the course STM 111- Strategie et Management, professor: Gilles van Wijk, ESSEC Business School
Intellectual property (IP) is defined as property that is developed through an intellectual and creative processes. Intellectual property falls under the category of property known as intangible rights, which includes patents (inventions of processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter), copyrights (original artistic and literary works of), trademarks (commercial symbols), and trade secrets ((product formulas, patterns, designs). Intellectual property rights has a significant value to both individuals and businesses, providing in the case of large companies, over one half of their value on return. Since intellectual property rights are so important to the U.S. economy and its citizens, federal and state law provides protection, for example, civil damages and criminal penalties to be assessed against infringers. Due to the importance of intellectual property to a business, I don’t think that its protection and enforcement is going to be a thing of the past.
“Linked to a brand, its name is the symbol that adds to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service.” (Aeler, 1991) Like country of origin, brand equity is also one of the reasons why some people want to have a well-known brands in the whole world. Sometimes it is not all about the price anymore because in today’s generation brand is more important than
Intellectual property is information, original ideas and expressions of the persons mind that have profitable value and are protected under copyright, patent, service mark, trademark/trade secret regulation from replication, violation, and dilution. Intellectual property includes brand items, formulas, inventions, data, designs and the work of artists. It is one of the most tradable properties in the technology market.