MARCAS Propiedad Intelectual El Derecho que hace posible un inters propietario sobre las creaciones de la mente.

. Tipos principales de propiedad intelectual Derecho de Autor Copyright obras artsticas y literarias Patentes Patents invenciones pragmticas Marcas de Fbricas Trademarks smbolos comerciales. Secretos de negocio trade secrets Copyright El copyright provee proteccin a las obras originales que estn fijas en un medio de expresin. Obras de arte, literatura, msica, obras audiovisuales, pelculas, programas de computadoras. La proteccin es automtica (No registro, slo fijo en un medio de expresin) El registro concede derechos procesales y sustantivos adicionales Los derechos exclusivos: Reproducir la obra (copiar) Preparar obras derivadas (pelcula sobre novela, traduccin, arreglo musical) Distribuir (venta, arrendamiento, cesin) Exponer pblicamente Presentar en pblico (concierto, TV vs. Cantar en la baera, DVD entre familia y amigos) Uso justo o Fair Use Dos tipos de derechos de autor Derechos patrimoniales de autor Derechos morales de autor Regulado exclusivamente por la Ley Federal 17 USC 101, et seq. Duracin: 70 aos luego de la muerte del autor (Mickey Mouse/2004/2024); o 95 aos desde la publicacin o 120 desde la creacin, lo que resulte menor. (annimos, por encargo, seudnimos) The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 Disney (extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"). Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse, who made his screen debut in the 1928 cartoon short "Steamboat Willie," was due to expire in 2003, and Disney's rights to Pluto, Goofy and Donald Duck were to expire a few years later.

Donations of campaign cash - more than $6.3 million in 1997-98. El plagio es el acto de copiar en lo sustancial como si fuera de uno. Distinto a copyright que es copiar, distribuir, adaptar, publicar o exponer sin permiso del autor o dueo. Patentes Patents Derechos exclusivos a los creadores de un invento til, novel y no obvio. Tiene que registrarse para existir (Constitutivo = Hipoteca) Tiene que describir en detalle el invento (distinto al secreto de negocio trade secret) Base Legal Article 1 8, cl. 8, of U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts by securing for Limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries Balance entre la necesidad de incentivar invenciones y creatividad y evitar un monopolio que obstaculice la competencia. DERECHO MARCARIO Bases Legales del Derecho Marcario Ley 169 de 16 de diciembre de 2009, Ley de Marcas del Gobierno de Puerto Rico. Ley de Nombres Comerciales de Puerto Rico, Ley Nm. 75 del 23 de septiembre de 1992, segn enmendada, 10 L.P.R.A. 225 et seq. Artculo 1802 del Cdigo Civil de Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A. 5141 usar la marca de otra persona ouna marca similar es una forma de competencia desleal. El Lanham Act, Ley 489 del 5 de julio de 1946, segn enmendada (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) protege las marcas registradas en el USPTO y las no-registradas pero utilizadas en el comercio interestatal. Jurisprudencia interpretativa de P.R. y de E.U.

MARCAS Palabras, frases, signos, diseos, imagen o estilo comercial (trade dress), smbolos, formas, sonidos, logos, medios, olores, colores, movimientos, o combinacin de stos, que distinguen los productos o servicios de

una persona de aquellos de otra persona. Las marcas nos indican el origen de los productos o de los servicios. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/ 09/09/0917_global_brands/index.htm The Great Trust Offensive Companies as diverse as McDonald's, Ford, and American Express are revamping their marketing to win back that most valuable of corporate assets No.1 Coca Cola No. 2: IBM has strived to make it more broadly relevant by focusing on clean air and water, more efficient health care, and mass transportation. Componentes del valor de una marca Identificacin del producto Calidad Consistencia Confianza / accountability Identidad para otros Identidad propia tica Propsito Dual Proteger a los consumidores de que resulten confundidos o engaados sobre el origen de un producto o servicio en el mercado, Incentivar a los comerciantes a respaldar a sus productos o servicios mediante la proteccin de la reputacin y plusvala que han desarrollado en sus marcas. Principio Fundamental Los derechos sobre una marca surgen del uso en el comercio de los productos o servicios y el pblico tiene que reconocer la marca como un identificador del productor u origen para que pueda ser protegida. If the mark ceases to be used as a source indicator, or if the public ceases to recognize it as a source indicator, then it will cease to be protected as a trademark. Por esto es sumamente crucial que el dueo de una marca monitoree el uso de la marca y la percepcin que pueda tener el publico de su marca Aspirin Misused Alka-Setlzer BAND-AID Chapstick Coke JELL-O Kleenex Magic Marker Popsicle Post-it Rollerblade Jeep JET SKI Laundromat Mace Q-Tips Trademarks That Became Generic

YO-YO ESCALATOR - TV Dinner Zipper CELLOPHANE ESCALATOR THERMOS 386 ASPIRIN (generic) vs. TYLENOL (still protected)

TIPOS DE MARCA Marcas de Fabrica: palabras, frases, signos, diseos, imgenes o estilos comerciales (trade dress), smbolos, formas, sonidos, logos, medios, olores, colores, movimientos, o combinacin de estos, que identifican a un producto y la fuente del mismo. Ejemplos: Palabras: Nike, Kleenex, Clorox, Kodak Disenos o logos: Nike, BMW etc. Colores: El marrn de UPS.. Formas La botella de Mistoln, la botella de Pedialite, la botella de Coca Cola, la forma del Ipod, Built NY 2 bottle tote, la forma de los Lifesavers, el diseo del encendedor ZIPPO, y la forma de un pecesito en las galletitas GOLDFISH de Nabisco. Frases (slogans) Just do it Im lovin it Hace feliz a tu nariz "Hasta la vista, baby." - The Terminator "Show me the money!" - Tom Cruise in "Jerry Maguire Solo su peinador lo sabe de Clairol Where theres lifetheres BUD de Anheuser-Busch Frases (Slogans) DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT My life. My card SONIDOS NBC AOL Marcas de Servicios Palabras, frases, signos, diseos, imgenes o estilos comerciales (trade dress), smbolos, formas, sonidos, logos,

medios, olores, colores, movimientos, o combinacin de stos, que identifican o distinguen la fuente de unos servicios. o Ejemplos: Palabras: Burger King, McDonalds, Dominos, IBM, Kelly Services, Microsoft, American Express, Sears, UPS, Toyota, BMW, Churchs AT&T, Walmart, Hilton, Pueblo, Grande, Walgreens, Fridays, Chilis. Frases: Just do it; Dont leave home without it. Sonidos: Las tres notas musicales de NBC, las notas musicales de Law & Order, y dems sonidos que ya escuchamos. Logos: BMW, Mercedes. Diseos o trade dress: McDonalds.

Marcas de Certificacin Certifica caractersticas comunes, en particular la calidad, los componentes y el origen de los productos o servicios elaborados o distribuidos por personas autorizadas, ajenos a la marca de certificacin. o Ejemplo: Hecho en Puerto Rico (para certificar que un producto proviene de Puerto Rico); FIBA (Federacin Internacional de Baloncesto Aficionado); FIA (Federacin Internacional de Automovilismo). Marcas Colectivas Se utilizan en el comercio por miembros de una asociacin, organizacin, fraternidad, etc., para establecer que son miembros de la misma o Ejemplos: Phi Kappa Theta Caballeros de Coln Sigma Categoras de Marcas Arbitrarias o Imaginables o No guardan relacin con las caractersticas del producto o servicio que identifica la marca o Las marcas imaginables son palabras que se inventan los comerciantes con el propsito de utilizarlas como marcas no tienen significado alguno Ejemplos: XEROX , KODAK, KLEENEX, EXXON, FAB

o Las marcas arbitrarias son palabras que existen pero que no tienen relacin con el producto o servicio para el cual son utilizadas Ejemplos: DOMINOS para pizza; IVORY para jabn; APPLE para computadoras; DOVE para jabn; SUBWAY para restaurant 42 Sugestivas o Son aqullas que sugieren, mediante un esfuerzo de la imaginacin del consumidor, alguna caracterstica del producto Ejemplos: CEASARS PALACE sugiere la opulencia del hotel El slogan "hace feliz a su nariz" para un limpiador ROACH MOTEL para pesticida COPPERTONE para locin bronceadora CLOROX para blanqueador BEST BUY para tienda de electrnicos CIRCUIT CITY para tienda de electrnicos Descriptivas Identifican o llaman la atencin a unas caractersticas, ingredientes, cualidades o naturaleza de un producto o servicio. Estas marcas no pueden usarse de forma exclusiva por parte de una persona y tampoco son registrables. Ejemplos: Pginas Amarillas para directorio telefnico All Bran para cereal Vision Center para ptica La Casa de las Escaleras para tienda que vende escaleras Raisin Bran para cereal (Skinner v. General Foods, 52 F.Supp. 432 (1943) Dry Fry para sustancia que se rocia en el sartn para freir sin aceite (E.F.Drew & Co. v. Pam Industries, 299 F.2d 777 (7mo Cir. 1962) Las marcas descriptivas solo pueden llegar a ser de uso exclusivo de una persona si la marca ha adquirido un significado secundario. Ello sucede cuando la marca se usa por cierto tiempo, de forma casi exclusiva para el producto o servicio, y el consumidor asocia la marca con el producto o servicio y asocia que provienen de una fuente en particular.

Ejemplos: Caf Rico Cooperativa de Cafeteros v. Coln, 91 D.P.R. 372 (1964) Nu-Enamel (para esmalte) Armstrong v. NuEnamel, 305 U.S. 315 (1938) ParkN-Fly para estacinamiento cerca del aeropuerto (ParkN Fly v.Dollar) o Park & Fly, 468 U.S. 189 (1985)

Genricas El trmino genrico es aqul que el consumidor denomina o conoce como nombre comn de un producto o servicio y no de un producto o servicio que proviene de una fuente en particular. El trmino genrico pertenece al dominio pblico y puede ser utilizado por cualquier persona para identificar el producto o el servicio de ese gnero. Un trmino genrico jams podr ser la marca de un producto o servicio. Ejemplos: Pizzera, barbera, panadera, Sushi Place, Oyster Bar, parmesano, manchego, Hotels.com, etc.

Distintividad Abercombie & Fitch - Demanda por infringement word Safari - Instancia desestim demanda y orden la cancelacin de todos los registros de A&F - Desde 1936 ha usado la marca Safari para artculos ofrecidos y vendidos solo por A&F. - Hunting World utiliza la marca safari para sombreros y zapatos. - HW alega que Safari es descriptiva, genrica y solicita cancelacin de la marca. - even proof of secondary meaning, by virtue of which some merely descriptive marks may be registered, cannot transform a generic term into a subject for trademark. Suggestive names are entitled to protectionwithout the need to show secondary meaning. Segn utilizada en unos productos en particular,Safari se ha convertido en un trmino genrico. Minisafari puede ser utilizado para los sombreros particulares en los que se usa.

Safari no es un trmino genrico para botas o zapatos, es sugestiva o meramente descriptiva. Es vlida por haberse convertido en incuestionable (incontestable) Fair Use Defense non-trademark use, use only to describe to users of the goods and services of such party, or their geographic origin.

Kellog v. National Biscuit Primary significance test the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer Enjoin manufacture and sale of shredded wheat. 1932 Shredded wheat term describing the product. Generic term of the article. The words accurately and aptly describe the product. Patent v. Trademark o Upon expiration of the patent the thing covered by the patent becomes public property. o Kellog was free to use the pillow-shaped form o Use of Kellog as house mark prominently in cartons o Cartons were distinctive o Pillow shaped form is functional (cost increase) . Sharing in the goodwill of an article unprotected by patent or trademark is the exercise of a right possessed by all-and in the free exercise of which the consuming public is deeply interested. No evidence of passing off Question of whether use of the picture is violation of trademark was not before courts consideration. A.J. Canfield Diet Chocolate Fudge Soda Whether Chocolate Fudge as applied to diet soda is protectable under trademark law. - Term to be generic - Particular full and rich chocolate flavor and use of competitors - Primary significance test whether the primary significance of a term in the minds of the consumer is the product or the producer. A term is suggestive if it requires imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of goods. A term is descriptive if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods.

A.J. Canfield

 Because chocolate fudge denotes a flavor, no imagination is required for a potential consumer to reach a conclusion about the nature of Canfields soda. Chocolate fudge as applied to diet soda = generic If a producer introduces a product that differs from an established product class in a particular characteristic, and uses a common descriptive term of that characteristic as the name of the product, then the product should be considered its own genus. In Re Boston Beer The best beer in America Board Merely descriptive because it is only laudatory and simply a claim of superiority Not generic claims of superiority should be freely available to all competitors in any given field to refer to their products or services Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product are also descriptive A phrase or slogan can be so highly laudatory and descriptive as to be incapable of acquiring distinctiveness as a trademark. Incapable of registration as a trademark Echo v. Travel Associates Echo sued TA alleging passing off its vacation tour services as those of Echo, by using promotional poster substantially identical to a poster used by Echo. Had the poster acquired secondary meaning? mental association in buyers minds between the alleged mark and a single source of the product. The public need not be aware of the name of the source Product comes from a single, though anonymous source. Evidence of Secondary Meaning - Direct Evidence o Direct consumer testimony Excluded affidavits (relevant public) o Consumer surveys - Cicumnstancial Evidence o Exclusivity, length and manner of use Not copyright, but use by others No fixed rule as to the length o Amount and manner of advertising It is the effect and success of advertising not the fact

Amount of sales and Numbers of Customers o Insufficient to draw conclusions Evidence insufficient to show Echos established place in the market No proof of intentional copying

Security Center v. First National Security Center suggestive (District Court) The categorization of a term as distinctive or nondistinctive is a factual issue. The Descriptive/Suggestive Paradigm How much imagination is required on the consumers part in trying to cull some indication from the mark about the qualities, characteristics, effect, purpose, or ingredients of the product or service - Whether sellers of similar products are likely to use, or actually do use, the term in connnection with their goods. Marcas que no son Susceptibles de Proteccin Registral Marcas geogrficamente descriptivas o geogrficamente engaosas o primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive o Una marca es geogrficamente descriptiva si identifica el lugar de donde vienen los productos o el lugar donde se brindan los servicios. o Una marca es geogrficamente engaosa si la localizacin geogrfica utilizada en la marca es reconocida por la produccin de productos iguales o similares a los que representa la marca pero ese no es el lugar de origen de los productos en cuestin. Una marca es primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive si: o El significado primario de la marca es un lugar geogrfico generalmente conocido o Los productos o servicios no provienen de ese lugar o Existe la probabilidad que los consumidores crean que los productos o servicios vienen de ese lugar, y o La representacin geogrfica es un factor material en la decisin de comprar el producto o usar los servicios Esto es lo que se conoce como el goods/place association Las marcas geogrficamente descriptivas pueden registrarse y usarse de forma exclusiva

Ello sucede cuando, por el transcurso del tiempo, los consumidores asocian la marca con un producto o productor en particular y no con la localizacin geogrfica o el lugar de origen. Las marcas geogrficamente engaosas o primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, por ms significacin secundaria que adquieran, jams tendrn acceso al registro no son inscribibles.

Por otro lado, marcas con trminos geogrficos arbitrarios (porque no llevan a los consumidores a creer que los productos vienen del lugar mencionado, no hay goods/places association, son marcas arbitrarias que tienen acceso al registro sin necesidad de adquirir significacin secundaria. Ej. MALIBU para carro, DURANGO para carros, TAVARUA para ropa, HICACOS para restaurant/pub.

In Re Nantucket, Inc. - Marcas Geogrficas - The Act No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refusedregistration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it.. - Consists of a mark which, .. (2) when applied to the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them. - Of primary consideration is whether or not there is an association in the public mind of the product with the particular geographical area. - The Court determined, in a question of first impression, that public association of goods with an area must be considered in applying section 2(e)(2) - The proscription is not against misdescriptive terms unless they are deceptive. - If the goods do not come from the place named, and the public makes no goods place association, the public is not deceived and the mark is accordingly not geographically deceptively misdescriptive. Grand Canyon West Ranch v. Hualapel Tribe Op. no. 91162008 (TTBA 2008) - Hualapi solicito el registro de GRAND CANYON WEST para servicios de transportacion y Ranch se opuso alegando que era descriptiva y geografica y que no habia adquirido significado secundario. El TTAB determino que la marca era descriptiva y geogrfica, pero que Hualapai haba establecido significacin

secundaria. No obstante, no permiti el registro por fraude en la descripcin de los servicios. In re Beaverton Foods - Beaverton solicito el registro de Napa Valley Mustard Company, Co. Para mostaza. El TTAB hizo el anlisis para detrminar si era primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive y determino que: o 1) Napa Valley es un lugar geogrfico generalmente reconocido. o 2) La mostaza de Beaverton no es de Napa Valley (venia de Oregon). o 3) Napa Valley se conoce por su mostaza gourmet (entre otros productos). De hecho tiene un Napa Valley mustard festival anualmente. o 4) Los compradores estaran mas inclinados a comprar este producto si creen equivocadamente que provienen de Napa Valley. Por lo tanto, deneg el registro. Corporacion Habanos v. ANNCAS - Anncas solicito el registro de Habana Club para cigarros hechos con semillas de tabaco Cubano Corp. Havanos tiene registrado en el USPTO la marca Havanos y se opuso al registro alegando que Havana Club era primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive. - El TTAB hizo el anlisis de los 4 factores y neg la solicitud. Vail Associates v. Vent-Tel Co. - Vail Associates opera el Vail Ski Resort en Vail, el unico resort en Vail y tiene registrada la marca Vail para facilidades para esquiar. Al momento del caso, la marca era incontrovertible, por lo que ese registro no se poda cancelar por ser geogrficamente descriptivo. - Vent-Tel Co. Usa el numero 1-800SKIVAIL para proveer servicios de informacin a los visitantes de Vail y registro ese numero como una marca de serivicio. - VA demando a VTC alegando que la marca 1-800SKIVAIL causa confusin con su marca Vail. El Tribunal determino que no haba confusin y desestimo la demanda. - El Circuito confirmo alegando que las marcas no eran similares; que VA no poda impedir que otra entidad usara el termino Vail en el sentido geogrfico; y que muchos otros en el area usan Vail como parte de sus nombres. In Re Spirits of New Merced - Spirits solicito el registro de Yosemite Beer y el examinador rechazo por ser primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.

Spirits apelo y el TTAB confirmo. Al hacer el anlisis para determinar si la marca era primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, determino que Yosemite es el parque nacional mas importante de EE.UU.; que Spirits hace su cerveza en un pub en Merced a 80 millas de Yosemite; y que los consumidores pueden pensar que la cerveza es hecha con las aguas cristalinas del parque, lo cual no es correcto.

Federation des Industries de la Perfumerie v. Ebel International 2008 JTS 4 - Ebel Int. solicit el registro de la marca Ebel Paris y diseo. Ebel Int. est incorporada en Bermuda y su matriz, Belcorp, tiene sede en Lima, Per. - La FIP se opuso al registro alegando que la marca era geogrficamente engaosa o primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, pues la corpoaracin era de Bermuda y no de Paris, y que el uso de Paris como parte del nombre pretenda vincular sus productos a Paris por ser un lugar reconocido por la calidad de perfumes y productos de belleza. - Ebel Int. contest que el trmino Ebel Paris no era geogrfico y que otra susidiaria de Belcorp (Ebel International France) est localizada en Paris, desde donde se contrata la elaboracin de los productos. - La FIP indic que los productos no eran elaborados en Paris y que la localizacin de las oficinas de una subsidiaria era irrelevante. - El Oficial Examinador aplic los factores para determinar si la marca Ebel Paris era primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive. Tales factores son: - El significado primario de la marca es un lugar geogrfico generalmente conocido - Los productos o servicios no provienen de ese lugar - Existe la probabilidad que los cosumidores crean que los productos o servicios vienen de ese lugar, y - La representacin geogrfica es un factor material en la decisin de comprar el producto o usar los servicios - Al aplicar estos factores determin que losproductos no provenan de Paris y, por ende,que la marca Ebel Paris era engaosa encuanto al origen de los productos. Por lo tanto,deneg el registro. - Ebel Int. recurri al Trib. Apelativo alegando que el Dpto. de Estado err al concluir que el significado primario de la marca Ebel Paris era el de una localizacin geogrfica generalmente conocida y que err al no reconocer que los productos tienen contactos suficientes con Paris. - El Trib. Apelativo confirm la resolucin recurrida indicando que la marca Ebel Paris era una marca compuesta y geogrficamente engaosa pues los productos no tenan contactos suficientes con Paris.

Ebel Int. recurri al Trib. Supremo y ste revoc ambas decisiones. Concluy que el significado primario de la marca Ebel Paris no es geogrfico -porque EBEL lo escriben en letras maysculas y grandes y Paris est ubicado debajo de EBEL en letras ms pequeas. Concluy adems que existe una conexin entre los productos y Paris -porque las oficinas de Ebel France estn en Paris y desde all se manejan todos los asuntos de desarrollo y fabricacin de los productos, los cuales se manufacturan a 400 km de esa ciudad. Por lo tanto resolvi que la marca Ebel Paris no era primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.

In Re California Innovations - Goods place association requirement - After the NAFTA changes in the Lanham Act, the PTO must deny registration under 1052(e) (3) if: - (1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location, - (2) the consuming public is likely to believe the place identified by the mark indicates the origin of the goods bearing the mark; and - (3) the misrepresentation was a material factor in the consumers decision. Lane -

Capital v Lane Capital Middle name Last name Surnames Primarily merely a surname descriptive mark in that they describe the fact that the named individual is affiliated with the firm. Marks that are primarily merely a surname are unregistrable unless they have acquired secondary meaning A mark is primarily merely a surname if the primary significance of the mark to the purchasing public is that of a surname. merely is synonymous with only Significance is primarily only a surname If composite question is what the purchasing public would think when confronged with the mark as a whole. The fact that the word has a dictionary definition is important in the assessment. SL&E solicit el registro de SAM EDELMAN para maletas, carteras, monederos, mochilas, y artculos similares y el examinador deneg el registro porque causaba confusin con la marca EDELMAN previamente registrada. SL&E aleg que existe una fuerte poltica pblica de permitir que los individuos usen sus nombres.

El TTAB contest que el hecho que ese sea su nombre no le da un derecho irrestricto de usar su nombre como marca si conflije con una marca previamente registrada.

In re SL&E Training Stable, Serial no. 78806669 (TTAB 2008) - MC solicit el registro del nombre MARIA CALLAS (famosa cantante de pera) para joyera y el examinador deneg el registro porque falsamente sugera una relacin o conexin con una persona fallecida. - MC aleg que ella falleci en el 1977 y que cualquier derecho sobre su nombre se extingui con su muerte. - Aunque haba prueba en conflicto sobre este punto, el TTAB determin que cualquier duda debe resolverse a favor del solicitant pues si alguien tena derechos sobre ese nombre poda oponerse al registro. In re MC MC S.r.l., Serial no. 79022561 (TTAB 2008) Roux v. Clairol - "Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser knows For Sure - Roux contends that slogan is not subject to protection that it is a common, laudatory advertising phrase which is "merely descriptive" of the goods - is the slogan a "trademark? - applicant has so extensively promoted its slogan that it must have made some impact on the purchasing public as an indication of origin. Wal Mart Stores v. Samara - In evaluating the distinctiveness of a mark under 2 (and therefore, by analogy, under 43(a)), courts have held that a mark can be distinctive in one of two ways. First, a mark is inherently distinctive if [its] intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source. - Second, a mark has acquired distinctiveness, even if it is not inherently distinctive, if it has developed secondary meaning, which occurs when, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a [mark] is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself. Wal Mart - In an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a products design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, only upon a showing of secondary meaning. - Product Design v product packaging. Walmart v. Samara - Held: product design protectable only if becomes distinctive through secondary meaning. - Copyright or design patent available to protect producer of design trade dress who cant show secondary meaning.

Distinguished from Taco Cabana b/c restaurant trade dress more like traditionally protected product packaging. Inc lose cases, courts err on side of categorizing trade dress as product design, requiring secondary meaning.

Herbko v International Inc. - To establish priority one must show - Propietary rights in the mark - Likelihood of confusion Herbko - Prior registration - Prior use - Prior use analogous to trademark or service mark use. - Required reasonable timeness - Titile of a single book cannot serve as a source identifier - The publication of a single book cannot create, as a matter of law, an association between the books ittle and the source of the book. As such if a later party uses or applies for a trademark before the creation of a series, the propietary rights for the series title date back to the first volume of the series only if the second volume is published with a reasonable time with a requisite association in the public mind. 40 Marcas que no son Susceptibles de Proteccin Registral - La jurisprudencia ha establecido que los ttulos de una obra, como de un libro, de una obra de teatro, de un disco, o de un edificio no se pueden registrar como marcas. - Un ttulo puede registrarse si es el nombre de una serie de obras creativas como, por ejemplo, de un peridico o un magazn. - En In re Innovative Companies, Serial no. 76607252 (TTAB 2008) se solicit el registro de FREEDOM STONE para piedras a usarse como base del edificio Freedom Tower. El examinador rehus el registro porque FREEDOM STONE no era una marca sino el ttulo de una sola obra. Una marca identifica los bienes de una persona en el mercado, no un slo artculo. In Re Polar - "just showing the name of the recording group on a record will not by itself enable that name to be registered as a trademark. Where, however, the owner of the mark controls the quality of the goods, and where the name of that recording group has been used numerous times on different records and has therefore come to represent an assurance of quality to the public, the name may be registered as a trademark since it functions as one." Personal names of individuals or groups function as service marks for entertainment services only if

they identify and distinguish the services recited and not merely the individual or group. The following guidelines must be followed to ensure consistent action on applications to register the names of performers for sound recordings in accordance with In re Polar Music International AB and In re Spirer. First, the names of performers may only be registered as a trademark if the mark is used on a series of sound recordings. The identification of goods must specifically indicate that there is a series. If the application does not identify the goods in this fashion, the examining attorney must require an appropriate amendment. Secondly, the applicant must provide evidence that the mark has been applied to at least two different recordings in the series. In an intentto-use application, the applicant must provide evidence of use on at least two recordings at the time the applicant files either the amendment to allege use or the statement of use. The examining attorney should provide advance notice of this requirement during initial examination, where appropriate. If the applicant is unable to demonstrate use on a series, the mark may be registered on the Supplemental Register, provided it is otherwise proper. These procedures apply specifically to performers' names used on recordings and not to other types of marks used on other types of artistic material. Finally, it is only necessary to inquire about the applicant's control over the nature and quality of the goods if information in the application record clearly contradicts the applicant's verified statement that it is the owner of the mark or entitled to use the mark.

In Re Clarke (Olor) - A fragrance is capable of serving as a trademark to identify and distinguish a certain type of product. The Court held that scent is not an inherent attribute of the goods, but a feature supplied by the applicant. She emphasized the attribute in her advertising, and consumers associate the scent with her products. Therefore, applicant made a prima facie case of distinctiveness. In re La Pelegrina, Serial no. 78676199 (TTAB 2008) - La solicitante solicit el registro de LA PELEGRINA para joyera (perlas). - El examinador rehus el registro alegando confusin con la marca PILGRIM previamente registrada para joyera. - La solicitante aleg que LA PELEGRINA y PILGRIM eran diferentes en pronunciacin y en apariencia y que las personas no van a traducir LA PELEGRINA a the PILGRIM. Ello es lo que se conoce como el stop and translate test.

El TTAB confirm la denegatoria del registro alegando que LA PELEGRINA y PILGRIM eran marcas similares, que significaban lo mismo, y que se usaban para los mismos productos. La Doctrina de las Equivalencias Forneas (Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents) provee que una palabra extranjera, al momento de solicitarse su registro en el PTO, tiene que traducirse al ingls para determinar si se parece a una marca ya registrada, si es descriptiva, si es genrica, si es geogrfica, etc. Aunque parece sencillo, la doctrina no es de fcil aplicacin. En algunos casos sobre probabilidad de confusin se ha indicado que la doctrina no se aplicar si los consumidores no traducirn la marca a su equivalente en ingls would not stop and translate the mark into its English equivalent. En el caso de LA PELEGRINA, su dueo trat de demostrar, con unas declaraciones, que la gente would not stop and translate la marca LA PELEGRINA a the pilgrim pero el TTAB no acept el argumento.

In Re Owens-Corning Fiberglas - Examining attorney denied registration of the color "pink" as a trademark for fibrous glass residential insulation. - The Board held that the overall color of goods is capable of functioning as a trademark, but affirmed the examiner's denial of registration on the ground that OCF had not adequately demonstrated that the color "pink" is distinctive of OCF's goods. - In In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1340-41, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 9,15-16 (CCPA 1982), the court looked at the following factors to determine functionality: (1) whether a particular design yields a utilitarian advantage, (2) whether alternative designs are available in order to avoid hindering competition, and (3) whether the design achieves economies in manufacture or use. - Trademark status of the colors of pharmaceutical products has been vigorously litigated, and although some judicial decisions proceeded on a theory of "palming off", many have afforded relief against imitation of capsule or tablet colors when the facts established that such features were non-functional and had acquired a secondary meaning in the marketplace. o Viagra little blue pill o Nexium- the purple pill - The color "pink" has no utilitarian purpose, does not deprive competitors of any reasonable right or competitive need, and is not barred from registration on the basis of functionality. TRADE DRESS - El trmino se refiere a componentes distintivos del empaque o de la configuracin de un producto.

Total image of a product o Incluye elementos tales como tamao, forma, color, textura, grficas, diseo de un producto. o Todos los elementos se combinan para crear una imagen visual que le es presentada a los consumidores o Originalmente estaba limitada al empaque de un producto. o Ahora se ha expandido a la decoracin, estilo de un grupo de rock, etc. Fuente de Proteccin - Seccin 43(a) de la Ley federal como smbolo o aparato o Esta seccin protege marcas no registradas o Para ser protegible, un trade dress deber designar la fuente de origen de los productos o servicios. o Significacin Secundaria Secondary Meaning Puede ser distintivo inherently distinctive (sugestivo, arbitrario) No secondary meaning Si no es distintivo, entonces secondary meaning Colores y diseo de producto protegibles solo luego de establecer secondary meaning o Funcional No puede ser funcional Es funcional si el elemento es esencial al uso o propsito del artculo, o afecta el costo o calidad del artculo o El uso exclusivo del elemento pondra a los competidores en desventaja o El peso de la prueba de probar que no es funcional recae en el demandante. o Si no es funcional entonces todos estn libres de utilizarlo. Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana Supreme Court held that inherently distinctive trademark may be protected, w/o the need to show secondary meaning - "a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas, with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme." 932 F.2d 1113, 1117 (CA5 1991). - Design, like color, is not inherently distinctive - In the case of product design, as in the case of color, we think consumer predisposition to equate the feature with the source does

not exist. Consumers are aware of the reality that, almost invariably, even the most unusual of product designssuch as a cocktail shaker shaped like a penguinis intended not to identify the source, but to render the product itself more useful or more appealing. Qualitex v. Jacobson Products - We cannot find in the basic objectives of trademark law any obvious theoretical objection to the use of color alone as a trademark, where that color has attained "secondary meaning" and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular brand (and thus indicates its "source") - The upshot is that, where a color serves a significant nontrademark function - whether to distinguish a heart pill from a digestive medicine or to satisfy the "noble instinct for giving the right touch of beauty to common and necessary things," G. K. Chesterton, Simplicity and Tolstoy 61 (1912) - courts will examine whether its use as a mark would permit one competitor (or a group) to interfere with legitimate (nontrademark-related) competition through actual or potential exclusive use of an important product ingredient. Yankee Candle - Yankee had failed to introduce any survey evidence, which this Court has described as the "preferred" manner of demonstrating secondary meaning. See id. at 154 (citing Boston Beer, 9 F.3d at 182). Second, Yankee had not introduced any circumstantial evidence indicating that the public had made a conscious connection between the trade dress at issue and Yankee as the source of that trade dress. - This Court has said that "[p]roof of secondary meaning entails vigorous evidentiary requirements." Boston Beer, 9 F.3d at 181 (quoting Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., 915 F.2d 121, 125 (4th Cir. 1990)). The only direct evidence probative of secondary meaning is consumer surveys and testimony by individual consumers. Sunrise Jewlery v. Fred - By definition, something that is generic cannot serve as a trademark because it cannot function as an indication of source. - A mark can be cancelled if even after incontestable it becomes generic. Publication International v. Landoll - If the product nevertheless presented a distinctive appearance, that appearance would be eligible for legal protection as trade dress unless it was the only way the product could look, consistent with its performing each of the product's functions optimally - trademark and trade dress law do not protect originality; they protect signifiers of source. In intellectual property cases, a picture, or, better, the very object claimed to infringe, is worth a thousand words of brief.

Examiner sustained that the design sought to be registered as a trademark is not distinctive, that there is no evidence that it has become distinctive or has acquired a secondary meaning, that it is "merely functional," "essentially utilitarian," and nonarbitrary, wherefore it cannot function as a trademark. - After a careful review of the evidence in the case before us, we cannot escape the conclusion that the container for applicant's products, the configuration of which it seeks to register, is dictated primarily by functional (utilitarian) considerations, and is therefore unregistrable despite any de facto secondary meaning which applicant's survey and other evidence of record might indicate. As stated in the case of In re Deister Concentrator Company, Inc. [48 CCPA 952, 289 F.2d 496, 129 USPQ 314 (1961)], "not every word or configuration that has a de facto secondary meaning is protected as a trademark. - a discussion of "functionality" is always in reference to the design of the thing under consideration (in the sense of its appearance) and not the thing itself - If the functions of appellant's bottle can be performed equally well by containers of innumerable designs and, thus, no one is [*1343] injured in competition, why did the board state that appellant's design is functional and for that reason not registrable? Wallace v. Godinger In the instant matter, Wallace seeks trademark protection, not for a precise expression of a decorative style, but for basic elements of a style that is part of the public domain. As found by the district court, these elements are important to competition in the silverware market. Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays - The principal question in this case is the effect of an expired patent on a claim of trade dress infringement. A prior patent, we conclude, has vital significance in resolving the trade dress claim. A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. - Where the expired patent claimed the features in question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional, for instance by showing that it is merely an ornamental, incidental, or arbitrary aspect of the device. Harford House v. Hallmark Cards - Blue Mountain brought this action against Hallmark, alleging that Hallmark's "Personal Touch" line of greeting cards, designed and distributed for sale beginning in April 1986, is deceptively and confusingly similar to Blue Mountain's "AireBrush Feelings" and "WaterColor Feelings" lines. Blue Mountain asserts that Hallmark has violated section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) (1982),1 and is guilty of unfair competition and copyright infringement. - Trade dress is a complex composite of features. One may be size, another may be color or color combinations, another may be texture,

another may be graphics and arrangement and so on. Trade dress is a term reflecting the overall general impact, usually visual, but sometimes also tactile, of all these features taken together. Most importantly, the district court properly noted that the availability of alternative appealing designs is a key factor in determining that a trade dress is nonfunctional. district court was correct in determining preliminarily that the combination of the features comprising the trade dress, i.e., the overall appearance or look, of Blue Mountain's "AireBrush Feelings" and "WaterColor Feelings" cards is nonfunctional and thus protectable under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

Seccion 2(a) Lanham Act - No se permite el registro de marcas o Inmorales, escandalosas, engaosas o Denigren o falsamente sugieran conexincon una persona (muertas o vivas), institucin, creencia o smbolos nacionales o En relacin a marcas relacionadas a vinos o bebidas, una indicacin geogrfica que no sea el sitio de donde se origina el producto, solo si el uso de la marca comenz en o luego de enero 1995. Marca Inmoral o Escandalosa - Si resulta ofensiva a la conciencia o sentimientos morales de un numero sustancial de los miembros del publico en general. 183 F 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir 1999) (In re International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. - Determinacin subjetiva puede cambiar con cambios sociales y culturales. - El Federal Circuit determino que la determinacin de que una marca es vulgar es suficiente para establecer que es inmoral o escandalosa. - Se ha denegado el registro para el trmino BUBBY TRAP para bracier. - Una imagen que ensena un hombre y una mujer desnudos besndose - Una imagen de un perro defecando - BULLSHIT - JACK-OFF - MADDONA for wine - MESSIAS for wine - REDSKINS for football team (Reversed by Fed. Cir.) Deceptive Test - (1) la marca falsamente describe los productos o servicios - (2) la descripcin inadecuada debe ser del tipo que el consumidor pueda pensar que es cierto

(3) esa creencia equivocada probablemente incide materialmente sobre la decisin de si adquirir el producto. - i.e. LOVEE LAMB para covers de asientos de carro de material sinttico fe catalogado como engaoso porque indicia a la gente a pensar que los covers eran de piel de oveja. Conexin con Personas, Instituciones, etc. - Test: o (1) la marca es igual a o muy aproximada a la identidad de otro que ha sido utilizada previamente. o (2) la marca se reconoce como tal o (3) la otra parte no tiene conexin alguna con las actividades ejecutadas por el solicitante de la marca o (4) el nombre o identidad de la otra parte es de suficiente fama o reputacin que cuando la marca del solicitante es utilizada en el comercio en relacin a los productos o servicios se presume una conexin con la otra parte. Insignias Nacionales, estatales o municipales No permite marcas que comprenden o simulan la bandera o insignia de los Estados Unidos, cualquier estado, municipalidad o cualquier nacin extranjera. Nombre, imagen o firma - No se permite el registro de una marca que: o (1) se compone de un nombre, imagen o firma de una persona viva particular, excepto si se cuenta con el consentimiento escrito de esa persona; o o (2) el nombre, imagen, o firma de un Presidente de Estados Unidos fallecido, durante la vida de su viuda o viudo, excepto con el permiso escrito de la viuda o viudo. In Re Budge Manufacturing Fact that advertising stated that car seats for which trademark LOVEE LAMB was sought stated that the cover was made of simulated sheepskin did not preclude finding that use of the term lamb was misdescriptive. - Fact that no automobile seat covers were being made out of lambskin did not preclude finding that the trademark LOVEE LAMB for automobile seat covers was misdescriptive in view of fact that automobile seat covers made out of sheepskin were available on the market. - Nunca puede adquirir distintividad In Re Berman Bros - FURNITURE MAKERS for retail furniturestore services, not including the manufacture of furniture. - deceptively misdescriptive

First, it must be determined whether the proposed mark misdescribes a characteristic, quality, function, composition or use of the goods or services. If so, we reach the second part of the test, which is whether the misdescription is deceptive, or, in other words, whether prospective purchasers are likely to believe that the misdescription actually describes the goods or services. See In re Budge Manufacturing Co. Inc. 857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed.Cir.1988).

In ReWanda NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY for various kinds of leather bags, luggage, backpacks, wallets, tote bags, and the like. - A trademark is not primarily geographic where the geographic meaning is obscure, minor, remote, or not likely to be connected with the goods. - Trademark NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY for various kinds of leather bags, luggage, backpacks, wallets, tote bags, and the like was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive for goods identified, and thus was not registrable; NEW YORK is not an obscure geographical term and is known as a place were goods at issue are designed, manufactured, and sold, and public was likely to mistakenly make place/goods association. - Disclaimer of deceptive terms does not permit registrability of a trademark that is deceptive. - Wanda had failed to demonstrate any connection between the goods identified and the city or state of New York - With the incorporation of the NAFTA amendments into the Lanham Act in 1993, primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks were precluded from registration under all circumstances, even with a showing of secondary meaning. Harjo v Pro Football - Group of native american Indians petitioned to cancel various federal registrations of the mark REDSKINS for the Washington DC national football League Franchise. They argued the mark disparaged Native Americans. El test es con relacin al grupo alegadamente ofendido. En este caso se presento una encuesta que demostr que un 37% de los indios nativos se sentan ofendidos por el uso del trmino. - Se argument la inconstitucionalidad en relacin a la Primera Enmienda de la Constitucin de los Estados Unidos de America. - To ascertain whether trademark may disparage, for purpose of determining whether cancellation of registration is warranted, court must not only refer to dictionary definitions, but must also consider relationship between subject matter in question and other elements that make up mark in its entirety, nature of goods and/or services, and manner in which mark is used in marketplace in connection with goods and/or services.

In Re Riverbank Canning - The registration of the word Madonna as a trade-mark for wine was properly refused on the ground that such use of the word would be scandalous within the Trade-Mark Act. - It is true that the Bible records that the Savior changed water into wine at the behest of his Virgin Mother at the wedding feast, and quotations can be made from the Bible commending the use of wine; *1031 but it is also true that the evils growing out of the excessive use of intoxicating beverages are probably much greater today than they were 1900 years ago. In re McGinley Refusal by the Patent and Trademark Office to register applicant's trademark did not affect his right to use it and thus did not abridge his First Amendment rights. - Trademark consisting of photograph of nude man and woman kissing and embracing in manner appearing to expose male genitalia was scandalous within meaning of the Lanham Act, and thus registration was properly refused. No conduct is proscribed, and no tangible form of expression is suppressed. Consequently, appellant's First Amendment rights would not be abridged by the refusal to register his mark. - DISSENT: The majority appears to rely on the Riverbank (MADONNA for wine) case decided in 1938. It was a three-to-two decision and I feel the dissenters took the sounder position. I think the decision is no longer of precedential value in view of the social changes in the ensuing 43 years. Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds - Applicant's defecating dog mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter, that it may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with opposer or bring oppose into contempt or disrepute, and that applicant's design so resembles opposer's previously used and registered running dog mark as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. In Re Old Glory Condom - Old Glorys request to register its mark (left) was rejected under 2(a) of the Trademark Act because it was considered scandalous - Issue: Can a trademark be refused registration as scandalous solely on the basis of its political content? Held: No. In Re Old Glory Condom; cont. - No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature UNLESS: o It consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter which may disparage or falsely

suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute - Scandalous is something shocking to the conscience, something disparaging, may be considered scandalous, but not in all circumstances. Dawn Donut v. Harts Food Stores FACTS: - The used name Dawn since 1922; registered name in 1927 and 1947. used same name since 1951, but in a limited area around Rochester. hasnt been w/in 60 miles of Rochester since 1927. Dawn Donut v. Harts Food Stores - ISSUE: Can the enjoin s use of mark, when it has not exploited the s market for 30 years? FACTS: RULE: Lanham Act 15 USC 1114: If the marks used are in two separate markets, with no likelihood of expansion, negating public confusion, then registrant is prohibited from enjoining the junior users use of the mark. - HOLDING: o Injunction unwarranted and can use the mark the separate area until the expands business. o Although the Lanham Act overruled Hanover Star Milling, and 15 U.S.C. 1072, affords nationwide protection to registered marks regardless of areas in which the registrant actually uses the mark, 1114 states that enjoinment is only awarded where there is a likelihood of confusion. o Here, there is no likelihood of confusion. The marks travel in different circles Burger King of Fl. v. Hoots - 1953: Plaintiffs opened first Burger King restaurant in Florida - 1957: Defendants opened a Burger King restaurant in Matoon, Illinois without knowledge of plaintiffs prior use of the name - 1959: Defendants registered their name under under Illinois Trade Mark Act - 1961: Plaintiffs BK chains expanded into Illinois, and Plaintiffs federal trademark was issued - Held: Plaintiffs federal registration of the trademark Burger King gave them the exclusive right to use the mark in Illinois, except in the market where defendants, without knowledge of plaintiffs prior use, actually used the mark before plaintiffs federal registration. Defendants market area was limited to within 20 miles of their place of business, and their use of the mark was confined to that distinct and geographically separate market. Burger King of Fl. v. Hoots; cont.

Federal Trade Mark Act 15 U.S.C. 1065 provides owners of a federally registered trade mark the incontestable right to use the mark in commerce, except to the extent that such use infringes what valid right the defendants have acquired by their continuous use of the same mark prior to plaintiffs federal registration 15 U.S.C. 1115(b) provides that if a trade mark was adopted without knowledge of the federal registrants prior use, and has been continuously used, then such use shall constitute a defense to infringement, provided that this defense applies only for the area in which such continuous prior use is proved

Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc. - El fraude debe ser demostrado mediante prueba clara y convincente para poder servir como base para una cancelacin de un registro de una marca o probar daos. - Se entender que hay fraude slo cuando haya un intento deliberado de engaar a la oficina de mracas en el trmite del registro de la marca. Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc. - Un Good-faith junior user es aquel que comienza a utilizar la marca sin conocimiento de que otro ya la est utilizando; ese usuario inocente retiene el derecho a utilizar la marca en un rea distante y remota del rea donde el senior user est haciendo negocios - Una marca abandonada no puede ser objeto de una cesin dado que esa marca es objeto de cancelacin por parte de la oficina de marcas. Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc. - Para que prospere la defensa de good faith junior user hay que considerar tres factores: (1) si la marca estaba abandonada al momento de la cesin; (2) sila cesin incluy transferencia de la plusvala o goodwill de la marca; y (3) si la cesin es invlida por constituir un esquema de fraude. - El hecho de que la transferencia sea a cambio de $1.00 o que indique que haya sido por una consideracin de valor no quiere decir que sea inefectiva. Money Store v. Harris corp Finance, Inc. - Bajo la Ley federal el abandono de una marca ocurre: (a) cuando su uso ha sido descontinuado con la intencin de no reanudarlo. - La intencin de no reanudar uso puede ser inferida de las circumnstancias. (Caso a Caso) - La falta de uso o No uso por un periodo de dos (2) aos consecutivos ser evidencia prima facie de abandono de una marca. Titularidad sobre la Marca

Una vez la persona escogi el nombre para su producto o negocio (pues ese nombre es arbitrario o sugestivo y no descriptivo o genrico, y nadie est usando ese nombre o uno similar para el producto o servicio en cuestin), entonces, al momento de la persona usar esa marca en el comercio de Puerto Rico o de solicitar el registro en Puerto Rico, en ese momento adviene dueo de la marca. - Las marcas se obtienen por el uso en el mercado en conexin con productos o servicios. Colgate-Palmolive v. Mistoln, 117 DPR 313 (1986). No obstante, mediante el registro de las marcas en Puerto Rico y/o en E.U. se obtienen beneficios adicionales. Titularidad sobre la Marca - Si la marca solo se usa en Puerto Rico, el registro lo har en el Registro de Marcas del Departamento de Estado a tenor con las disposiciones de la ley de Puerto Rico. - Si la marca se utiliza en el comercio interestatal, se puede registrar en la Oficina de Marcas y Patentes de E.U. (PTO). - En Puerto Rico, despus que la marca est registrada, se puede usar el smbolo MR (marca registrada) con la marca. - Despus que la marca est registrada en el PTO, se puede usar el smbolo de con la marca. Antes del registro, se puede usar TM para marcas de fbrica o SM para marcas de servicio. Titularidad sobre la Marca - El dueo de una marca registrada federalmente tiene derechos que se extienden hasta Puerto Rico, puesto que el Lanham Act, bajo la definicin del trmino Estados Unidos, incluye todo territorio bajo la jurisdiccin y control de E.U. Adems, la Ley de Relaciones Federales provee que las leyes de E.U. tendrn la misma fuerza y vigor en Puerto Rico que en los E.U. - El dueo de un registro federal tiene derechos superiores a los de una persona que en Puerto Rico use la marca despus del registro federal. Por tal razn, el dueo de un registro federal tiene derecho a impedir el uso de una marca en Puerto Rico y tiene derecho a que se cancele el registro de una marca en PR que se us posterior a la solicitud de registro federal. American Home Products v. Arribas, 2005 TSPR 128 (SONATA).
-

Titularidad sobre la Marca - La marca pertenece al que primero utilice la marca dentro de la jurisdiccin que ofrece la proteccin jurdica o el que primero la registre (si no est en uso). Esto es lo que se conoce como el Principio de Territoriedad. - - Ejemplos: o Hace feliz a tu nariz (Colgate v, Mistoln, 117 D.P.R. 313 (1986) (primero en usar) o La Tana (Old Harbour v. Isla Verde Brewery) (primero en registrar)

o Vitamin World o Tierra del Fuego Titularidad sobre la Marca - Una excepcin al principio de la territoriedad lo son las marcas famosas o notorias (well-known marks). - La doctrina de las marcas notorias (well-known marks doctrine) provee a los dueos de marcas notorias proteccin contra la competencia desleal por parte de un usuario posterior de la misma marca o una similar en otro pas cuando la marca es conocida por el mercado relevante en ese pas aunque la marca notoria no se use en tal pas. - Si Coca-Cola no vende sus productos en Cuba, por la ley del embargo, una persona no puede ponerle la marca Coca-Cola a un refresco para venderlo en Cuba alegando que esa marca no se usa en ese pas (presumiendo que no est registrada en Cuba). - Ejemplos: Grupo Gigante, Cipriani, Bukhara. Titularidad sobre la Marca - El Artculo 6 bis del Tratado de Pars para la Proteccin de la Propiedad Intelectual y el Artculo 16.2 del Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs) disponen que pases signatarios tienen que respetar las marcas famosas o notorias de otros pases signatarios y no pueden permitir que sus ciudadanos usen tales marcas famosas o notorias pertenecientes a otros. - En la Opinin del Secretario de Justicia Nm. 29 de 1980, se reconoci que las disposiciones del Artculo 6 del Tratado de Pars son de aplicacin en Puerto Rico como normas aceptadas por el gobierno de E.U. Titularidad sobre la Marca - El dueo de una marca tiene el derecho a - Usarla en el comercio para identificar su producto o servicio - Otorgar licencia para autorizar su uso por otro, o Venderla, o o Utilizarla como garanta o colateral de un prstamo u obligacin Violacin del Derecho Marcario - Como dueo de una marca, la persona tiene el derecho exclusivo para usarla en conexin con sus productos o sus servicios. - Si otra persona usa, copia, o imita su marca para productos o servicios iguales o similares a los suyos, ello constituye una violacin a su derecho marcario.

Probabilidad de Confusin - La probabilidad de confusin es el elemento clave para cualquier reclamacin para la proteccin de una marca. - Una mera posibilidad de confusin no da base para una reclamacin. - Se prohbe la probabilidad de confusin: - Para evitar competencia desleal con el primer usuario de la marca -en otras palabras, para prevenir que un segundo usuario se beneficie del goodwill del primer usuario de la marca. - Para proteger al consumidor que ste pueda distinguir eficientemente entre productos similares. Probabilidad de Confusin - Para determinar si hay probabilidad de confusin entre dos marcas, se lleva a cabo un anlisis que requiere considerar numerosos factores: o La similitud entre las marcas. o La similitud de los productos o servicios o La fuerza de la marca del reclamante o su distintivo o La intencin del segundo usuario al adoptar la marca o Parecidos en el mercadeo de los productos o Los consumidores prospectivos y o Evidencia de confusin actual o real Probabilidad de Confusin o Ejemplos de Confusin: Cooperativa de Cafeteros de PR v. F. Coln Coln, 91 DPR 372 (1964) Polo Fashions v. Telesforo Fernndez d/b/a La Esquina Famosa, 655 F. Supp. 664 (DPR 1987) (POLO shirts) Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (trade dress del restaurant) Veryfine Products v. Coln Brothers, 799 F. Supp. 2d 240 (DPR 1992) (diseo de etiqueta/trade dress de botellas de jugo y dilution) Telerep Caribe v. Zambrano, 146 F. Supp. 2d (DPR 2001) (telephone calling cards) Perfumania v. Perfulandia, 279 F. Supp. 2d 86 (DPR 2003) (nombres de tiendas) McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Merisant, Civil No. 04-1090 (JAG); 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27733 (DPR 2004). Addidas v. Payless En una opinion del 2007, el tribunal determino que la venta por parte de Payless de unos tenis con 2 y 4 rayas a los lados violaba la marca de las 3 rayas de adidas,

violaba el trade dress de sus tenis y diluia el famoso diseno de last res rayas. En el 2008, un jurado emition un veredicto de 300 millones a favor de adidas- la cantidad ms alta concedida de un caso de violacin al derecho marcario. Luego de ello, el tribunal lo redujo a 65 millones. En diciembre 2008, las partes apelaron al Noveno Circuito. In re Chica, Inc.,Serial no. 76627857 (TTAB 2007); Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-1238 (DRD)

o Ejemplos de no confusin: Posadas de PR v. Sands Hotel, 131 DPR 21 (1992) Plaza Club/Sands Plaza Club Malib para carro y Malib para bebida de ron y coco Payless para zapatos y Payless para alquiler de carros Hansen Beverage v. National Beverage, 493 F.3d 1047 (9no Cir. 2007) General Motors v. Urban Gorilla,2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21907 (10mo Cir. 2007) Quality Inns Intern., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. La ley de marcas le otorga al dueo de una marca el derecho a evitar el uso por parte de un usuario posterior de una marca que pueda causar confusin, error o engaar un nmero apreciable de consumidores tpicos a creer que existe algn tipo de asociacin, endoso, afiliacin o coneccin, entre el dueo de la marca anterior y el de laposterior. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 32(a) In 1988 Quality Inns was planning to open a new chain of economy hotels under the name "McSleep." After McDonald's demanded that Quality Inns not use the name because it infringed, the hotel company filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that "McSleep" did not infringe. McDonald's counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Eventually, McDonald's prevailed. The court's opinion noted that the prefix "Mc" added to a generic word has acquired secondary meaning, so that in the eyes of the public it means McDonalds,

and therefore the name "McSleep" would infringe on McDonald's trademarks. Mark is not to be confined formulistically to a classification established by the Patent and Trademark Office or by lines of market competition; mark is the identity of a corporation, a product, or a service and, to the extent goodwill attaches, it knows no boundaries. Lanham TradeMark Act, 32(a), 15 U.S.C.A. 1114(a). Enforcement of trademark rights to prevent use on related but noncompetitive goods is the Aunt Jemima doctrine, under which a mark is protected on any goods which buyers would be likely to think came from the same source as plaintiff's goods. The court rejected the old rule limiting enforcement to competitive goods and said a mark would be protected on any goods which buyers would be likely to think came from the same source as plaintiff's goods. Two marks that serve to identify products in two unrelated markets may very well coexist without confusion in the public's eye. Thus Notre Dame brand imported french cheese has been permitted to coexist with Notre Dame University; Bulova watches with Bulova shoes; Alligator raincoats with Alligator cigarettes; This Bud's for you in beer commercials with the same phrase used by a florist; White House tea and coffee with White House milk; Blue Shield medical care plan with Blue Shield mattresses; Family Circle magazine with Family Circle department store; Ole' cigars with Ole' tequila; and Sunkist fruits with Sunkist bakery products.