Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Trademark (categories of marks (designate sth other than the source of the…

- - - - apple iphone with the icon (rounded rectangle shape ) that is type of the feature, which is assiocated certain good so protectable
      - coca cola bottle-shape
      - taco cabana: interior restruant, the layout of the restruant, the entire package be a protecable feature, the underlying source and the look and the feel of the resturant
- - - - NICE
  - - - IF the countries is a signatory to the Paris Convention or WTO
        the applicant who has purposed a corresponding TM application in any of the member countries within the last 6 months may make a priority claim base on the corresponding application.
    - - Which must not be later than 6 months after expiry date
- - - - similarity of the mark商標近似程度
        
        Similarities type of TM
        
        Aural: bangkok jam V bangkok gem
        
        Visual :
        
        Conceptual
        EX: traffic jam V precious stone
      - proximity of the goods商品類似程度
        
        The similarity of G/S
        
        The Test in British Sugar
        
        The repective users of the respective GS
        
        The physical nature of the G or acts of S
        
        The repective trade channels through which the GS reach the market
        
        In practice they are likely to be found in supermarket on the same or differnect shelves
        
        The respective G/S are competitve
        
        The respective uses of the respective GS
      - strength of the mark識別性強弱
      - evidence of the actual confusion實際（混淆誤認）情事
      - marketing channel used先權利人多角化經營
      - defendant intent申請人是否善意
      - type of the goods and degree of care used to purchased相關消費者對商標熟悉程度
  - - - the difficult banned in the online enviroment
        
        techology of the search
        
        ease of embedding trademarks
        
        new business model
        
        very low consumer cost to search
      - the case
        
        gibson v reed smith guitars
  - - - The mark must be “famous”
      - The mark must be “distinctive” (not descriptive)
      - How do you Analyze Dilution?
        
        Degree of similarity between the competing marks
        
        Degree of distinctiveness of the famous mark
        
        Degree of recognition of the famous mark
        
        Degree of exclusive use of the famous mark
        
        The defendant’s intent to create an association
        
        Any evidence of actual association
      - CASE: Louis Vuitton v Haute Diggity Dog
        
        P owns a famous mark D is using a mark whose similarity creates an association between D’s mark and P’s mark,Which association is likely to (a) blur the distinctiveness or (b) tarnish P’s famous mark
        
        The court holds that the use of the LV mark was a ‘successful parody’ and that therefore it was not blurring of the famous LV mark. Note that the strength (distinctiveness, famousness) of the LV mark favors the defendant here
        
        Why is this a successful parody?[ Close, but not ‘too close’ to the famous mark. ]
    - - — reducing consumer search costs —
      - — encouraging investments in product quality —
- - - - Genericide:Marks that were protectable, but became generic over time. “Shredded Wheat” for a cereal.
  - - - for the defence of the LOD
        
        use of the individual name
        
        good faith of the descripitive
        
        use“seal with a kiss”: as applied to a mailin campaign for lip gloss
        “microcolor”: as applied to mini ‘dots’ of color in permanent makeup
      - the defence of the dilution
        
        Comparative Advertising
        
        News Reporting and Commentary
        
        Noncommercial Use
- - - - the footcourt with the yellow line: it is especially easy forobservation(for views to see
    - - EX: marketing displayVS trafFix device:
        MDI argue that dual design is trade dress and has acquired secondary
        
        imporatant functional purposes and the patents prove it
      - EX: three-headed shaver for essential functioning of the shaver=>shall under patent
      - EX:LEGO
      - EX:Rubik's Cube
    - - Aesthetic Functionality : Product or packaging features that are not purely utilitarian, but are aesthetically pleasing and are an important ingredient in the commercial success of a product are not eligible for trade dress or trademark protection./
        
        the Louboutin
        
        the heart design is not functional in the ordinary sense, but competitors would be at a non- reputational disadvantage if they can't use it.情人節，愛心盒如果有商標權，那其他競爭者會因為『無關信譽』之競爭造成不合理劣勢
    - - to prevent the exclusive and permanent right which a trade mark confers from serving to extend the life of other rights which the legislature has sought to make subject to limited periods. (by Philips v Remington)
      - Significant non-reputation-related disadvantage:
        Those are non-reputational aspects of what the design is, therefore, should be available for other people to compete with you on.
- - - - Well-known to the public at large refers to the population including all the heartland instead of being known by a certain of population.
        (ss8(4.b.ii) in particular, speaks on the “well known to the public at large” refers to the population including all the heartlanders (e.g., NTUC Fairprice), instead of ss8(4.a) just being known by a certain (atas) segment of the population (e.g, Huber’s Butchery).
        
        The protection is on anti-competition and anti-dilution by preventing the latecomer taking unfair advantage of the earlier brand well-known-at-large.
        
        This is typical American Doctrine incormporated into SG TMA after the USSFTA