“googlen” became an official German verb last year when it was added to the German “Duden” (the book of the German language, if a word is added there, then it is an official word). Google was pushing hard and were at least able to get the definition of the word changed from a generic search on any search engine to a search on Google only. Here is a link to a German article at a German news website via Google Translate.

The Iowa State Trademark Licensing Office states that

and that

(The above link is a great resource for trademark inforamtion)

So although the purpose of trademark law is meant to protect and to prevent confusion among consumers, It is a tool that is used by the trademark owner to protect their assets.

One of my reasons for stating that trademark is meant to protect the consumer (more so than the owner, is due to that fact that it is possible for a trademark owner to lose their rights if a trademark is deemed too generic or if someone else has a greater/stronger case for the mark. Some examples of Genericized Trademarks can be found at the following destinations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks

Copyright is a completely different beast and follows a completely different set of rules which are most definitely meant to protect the published intellectual property of the owner. Patents work in a similar fashion. To my knowledge the only way to lose a copyright or patent is by someone else claiming the first publication, creation, or use in business…. I don’t want to get into that too much as the law can get real specific and varies by country.

Anyway, hope all this helps. It is a big subject and knowing more about it can help keep you out of trouble.

Clear brand identification is one of the by-products of this process.

Else I agree with everything you’re saying and good elaboration of the principles you listed.

Trademarks aren’t meant to protect the company who owns them as much as they are meant to protect consumers from brand confusion.

I had a professor once with the last name of Macy. He would remind us that he could legally open a clothing store and call it Macy’s (assuming he doesn’t use a big red star) and have full legal protection because it is his name. I however could not change my name to Macy and then do the same and I imagine he would have issues selling it to someone else.

Additionally holding trademarks is not a passive activity. To maintain your trademark rights, you must go after any and all that are infringing on the mark. Ever hear about Disney going after kindergarten class rooms who painted Mickey and Donald on the wall… It has happened in the past even though it would obviously create some bad PR for the pursuing company. (I am not sure but I believe Disney would then give them a “free license” or something of that nature) It may not have been Disney who was doing this, but that is was I recall.

The other issue is to not be so powerful in your trademark that it becomes the generic name for the product. I think Band-aides had some issue awhile back and may have come back from the edge as people think of all sterile wrapping as band-aides.

Thanks for providing the link to that resource. You’ve brought up valid points. The hassle of litigation is why I deliberately stay away from registering domains that contain any sort of trademark.

This advice is especially pertinent to newbies who are just getting into internet marketing.

Hock

There are also five other PowerPoints for download on the same page where I got this PP from, which are about topics like intellectual property and e-Commerce. The URL is http://www.bretttrout.com/resources/presentations/ in case you are interested in those subjects as well.

Cheers!

Wouldn’t that have a similiar effect, while preventing ebay from coming after you for trademark domain issues?

So what if you have a company that is called Easy Baking and You! and you have a url ebay4u.com??? So I guess they can take the combination of those letters and kick you to the curb. Hmmm.. something is strange when you can’t use abbreviations that are completely relevant.

What do you think would happen if you had a URL for your name and it was Jeb Ayers so the jeBayers.com would be an infringement. Wow. Hope that isn’t your name or you could find yourself in court.

I digress…

jt

1. There is the issue of having a domain name that allegedly infringes on somebodies trademark. This determination alone is already difficult and several factors need to be considered for it. A trademark is only protected within a more or less narrow segment of the market. Things like how the domain is used and what are the chances that people confuse it etc.

2. Add to that the issue of reverse-hijacking of domains by trademark owners, especially in cases where the domain owner of the domain in question is a small business entity with limited financial resources.

Domain disputes used to be handled outside of courts, but the federal law for domain name disputes 15 USC 1125(d), which was recently introduced under the ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) changed that probably (I have not checked this in full detail yet). One thing changed for sure. While it was in the past common that the domain owner has to give up the domain if he loses the dispute, so is it now also connected to a minimum fine of $1,000 that could be up to $100,000 per case with that new law.

3. If you are an affiliate of the trademark owner and use the site to promote the trademark, while adding value and without just redirecting or using other similar and questionable tactics.

Affiliates are to an extend representing an advertiser, just like resellers do. That is where the term affiliate actually comes from. An affiliate should talk to the trademark owner if they have an affiliate relationship and talk about it. To provide legal security, an agreement should be devised that states that the affiliate is allowed to use the trademark term for the site. It should also state what the affiliate is allowed to do with it and what it is not, in return. This is similar to the agreements between search affiliates and advertisers when it comes to the use of trademarks in pay-per-click advertising.

What do you think?

Cheers!
Carsten

p.s. I suggest you change the phrase “copyright conflicts” to “trademark disputes”. Copyright law is a completely separate and different animal