Limitations on Trademark Rights

There are several restrictions placed upon the so called "exclusive right" to use a mark. Some marks such as personal names, "generic" words, and place names are considered too restrictive and will not ordinarily be granted much protection. It is considered unfair for example to allow one person the exclusive right to use a family name such as Jones.

There is some case law to the contrary, but it is generally held that in the absence of a contrary statutory provision; the exclusive right to a mark is limited to the particular trade or market area where it is used. A person cleaning computers under the service mark, Quick Qulean, in Seattle could ordinarily not prevent someone else from using the same mark for the same service in Orlando. (Federal registration of the mark may change this result.)

In general mark protection is extended only to the sale of goods or services of the same type or class. Quick Qulean could probably be used for a car wash even though it was in Seattle. There is little likelihood that customers will confuse the two marks because they apply to such different types of service.

Although marks are often considered a type of property, no rights in them can be transferred apart from the product or service which they identify. That is, the computer cleaning owner of Quick Qulean could sell or assign the rights to the mark to someone who was taking over the computer cleaning business, but not to someone who was going to use the mark to sell soap. The Lanham Act (the Federal law in this area) authorizes the sale or assignment of a mark provided the assignment is given along with assignment of the good will of the business and the assignment is recorded with the PTO.

Subject to the limitations described above it is generally held that the right to a mark may be inherited, mortgaged, or licensed.

Transfer of marks is further restricted to those which do not imply that the personal skill or care of a certain individual apply to a particular product or business. It is considered a fraud on the public to use a mark to imply that a well known or respected person stands behind a product or service when she is no longer associated with the company.



Bio | Contact | Legal | Links | Home | Patents | Trademarks | Copyrights
One Year Rule | Invention Promotion | Refer this site
Reproduction of this material without written permission is strictly forbidden. ©2003 - Gene Woodle Intelectual Properties. All rights reserved. Gene Woodle, 3516 Woodle Drive, Rapid City SD 57702