Trademark Law Meets The Internet

Trademark Law Meets The Internet A. Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law http://www.law.tm INET 2002

TM Rights Are Part of a Trend: The IP ‘Grab’ • Scope and reach of TM rights were growing before the Internet • Net provides a threat to TMs; reaction is to create even greater rights online • Internet rules have feedback to Trademark law generally. INET 2002 - Froomkin

Basic (Traditional) Principles of TM Law • Closely allied to punishment of “unfair competition” & “passing off” • Protect the consumer’s expectation • Protect the manufacturer’s “goodwill” in the mark • Encourage quality, disscourage deception • TMs reduce transactions costs • TM violators are free riders, fraudsters INET 2002 - Froomkin

Nature of Trademark Right • Trademarks are GEOGRAPHIC • Trademarks are SECTORAL • Apple Computer, Apple Records, no problem • 1,000 Bob’s Pizza’s, no problem (subject to issues of registration) • Basic test is commercial confusion INET 2002 - Froomkin

Where Do Trademmarks Come From? • Registration in the trademark office® • National or state • Harmonized by treaties • In common law countries - by usage™ • Complex rules for sorting priority • First user (senior user) has superior rights -- where it has actually been used • Registered user gets monopoly rights in all places in jurisdiction name isn’t yet used INET 2002 - Froomkin

But, Note Well • Mere registration gives no rights without use. Plus, ‘don’t use it: you lose it’ • Trademark law protects source identifiers of goods, not words “in gross” • Generic words can’t be trademarked -- for their generic meanings • Traditionally it’s a limited right INET 2002 - Froomkin

Growth of the Mega-Mark • Crosses sectoral categories - and borders • Transferable reputation of quality? • What good does Batman stand as source identifier of? • Growth of the information economy • The brand IS the product (think “swoosh”) INET 2002 - Froomkin

Dilution • Protects mark from people trading on its renown with unrelated goods • Mostly a product of last 50 years • Federal law 1995 protects only “famous” marks; treaty speaks of ‘well known’ too • Narrow? Broad? Broader? ‘In Gross’? • TeleTech? WaWa? • Wedgewood (for homes) INET 2002 - Froomkin

Domain Names--TM Nightmare • Can register without prior use • Don’t use it, no problem • Are not geographic -- DN is everywhere • And it’s not sectoral either • It was free, is still cheap • Cybersquatters • Typosquatters • “Wrong” uses INET 2002 - Froomkin

Special Cybersquatting Remedies • ACPA • Makes cybersquatting an offense • Applies to gTLDs & (some?) ccTLDs • First statutory damages in trademark law: $100,000 • UDRP • Double contract of adhesion • Incentive to ‘try it on’ • P. picks the arbitration provider causes unhappy incentives for arbitration service providers INET 2002 - Froomkin

Misuses of TM Law • Quieting critics • “Sucks” cases • Fair use that gets sued anyway • What’s “commercial” anyway? • ISPs exposed to users’ actions • CDA § 230 protections do not apply • DMCA ‘takedown’ protections? No. • Confusion test highly factual • Uncertainty about what’s commercial INET 2002 - Froomkin

UDRP-Elements • DN ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to TM • Common law marks in Spain? • Names? “Madonna”? • No ‘rights or legitimate interests’ • First Amendment? • DN registered andbeing used in “bad faith” INET 2002 - Froomkin

UDRP-Defenses • Prior use (or plan) for bona-fide offering of goods or services • You are commonly known by the name • Legitimate non-commercial or fair use “without intent for commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the mark”. INET 2002 - Froomkin

UDRP-Problems • RDNH • It’s cheap, and encourages ‘try-ons’ • Arbitrator quality is variable • Strategic behavior by plaintiffs • Notorious cases: names, geographic identifiers, tatas, Guinness beer • Procedural provisions really really suck • See “Causes and Cures” • http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf INET 2002 - Froomkin

The Feedback Loop? • “Someone’s got MY name” • Tail that wags the ICANN dog? • Increasing ‘propertization’ of TM rights • If a DN is property (is it?) does that encourage courts and businesses to think of TM as classic property? INET 2002 - Froomkin

Thank you • http://www.law.tm • froomkin@law.tm INET 2002 - Froomkin

Trademark Law Meets The Internet