To successfully file and register a trademark with the USPTO, two essential steps must be taken. First, it is crucial to show that the trademark is distinctive enough in relation to the goods or services associated with it. Secondly, evidence must be provided to demonstrate that the goods and services are genuinely being sold in interstate commerce. Interestingly, what many people may not be aware of is that trademark rights can also be obtained without submitting a trademark application to the USPTO. This can be achieved through the Common Law doctrine of trademark jurisprudence. If you're curious about the evolution of Common Law trademark rights in the internet era, continue reading to discover more.
Common Law Trademarks, like their official counterparts filed in the USPTO, are marks that possess sufficient distinctiveness in relation to their goods or services and are being used in commerce for the sale of those designated goods or services. However, what distinguishes Common Law Trademarks is their limited scope, which is confined to the geographical area where the marks are actually used. For instance, a ice cream shop named Arctic Delights in Dallas, TX, holds exclusive rights to use that name specifically for selling ice cream within Dallas (and possibly the rest of Texas).
The primary challenge in enforcing Common Law trademark rights arises from the fact that these marks are never formally registered with the USPTO. Consequently, determining the actual owner of the trademark and the date of ownership becomes difficult. Consider, for example, a scenario where two pizza shop owners in Queens have similar names and each wants to prevent the other from using that name. Since neither registered the name with the USPTO and instead relied on Common Law rights, it becomes challenging to establish who was the first user of the name and who possesses superior rights.
Ultimately, it falls upon the courts to address crucial questions such as the extent of trademark rights regarding the goods or services, the parties to whom these rights apply, and the geographic area that should be covered by the mark. In making these determinations, the courts consider various factors including the location where sales originated, the space from which sales are marketed and conducted, sales volume, the scope of usage, the expansion or contraction of sales, advertising saturation in the market, and efforts made to expand the usage of the mark.
As mentioned earlier, Common Law trademark rights are limited to a specific geographic area where the trademark is being used. For example, if you sell ice cream under a certain name in Dallas, your rights to that name only apply in Dallas. However, the challenge arises when it comes to trademarks used online and in e-commerce websites. The internet allows sellers to reach customers worldwide without physical limitations.
In the era of e-commerce, Common Law trademark rights may seem outdated. How can the courts define a geographic scope for a trademark's use and rights when anyone from anywhere can access goods with a simple click? The traditional factors considered by courts in analyzing Common Law rights, such as the physical location of the business and its customers, are becoming less relevant in the online space. It's important to remember that Common Law trademark rights provide protection within a specific geographical area, allowing two companies to potentially sell the same goods under the same trademark as long as they operate in different geographic regions. This is known as Concurrent Trademark Use and is considered appropriate because the geographic distance minimizes consumer confusion regarding brand ownership.
Now, let's consider a scenario where an e-commerce website named Snowy Wonder Globes was established in Texas in 2010, selling snow globes. Then, in 2020, a small retailer based in Oklahoma also sets up an e-commerce website selling baseball cards under the name Snow Wonder Globes. What happens when a trademark owner in a specific location faces digital competition from a distant competitor? The heart of trademark law revolves around the question of consumer confusion. When a consumer sees a junior trademark associated with goods or services, do they mistakenly believe that the goods or services are produced by the senior trademark owner?
Applying this principle to Common Law trademarks and the internet is less straightforward. It would seem unfair for the courts to deny concurrent internet use based solely on the act of publishing a website, considering the vast scope and reach of the internet. If that were the case, there would be no need to file for a federal trademark, which provides national coverage, as one could simply publish an e-commerce website accessible worldwide.
At the same time, the fact that the owner of an e-commerce website resides in Texas does not mean their website cannot have a significant impact and influence in Washington. If the owner has actively marketed and sold their products in Washington, it logically follows that their trademark rights should extend to that state as well. The devil is in the details, and in cases of infringement and enforcement, the courts will closely examine the real-life impact of a website.
If you need legal advice regarding your trademark rights, assistance with trademark prosecution, or representation in a domain name dispute, contact Wilson Whitaker Rynell. Our team of trademark lawyers has extensive experience in all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including the filing of trademark applications and representing clients in defense or prosecution before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Getting in touch is easy. Use the form below and request a free consultation today.
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)