|
|
 |
|
|
 
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|