Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

This essay attempts to explore trademark law and the marks themselves from a semiotic viewpoint to provide a deeper understanding to (trademark) law as a system of signs. Although the language of trademark law may suggest slightly different meanings, for the purpose of this essay “trademark” will refer to an area of law (unless otherwise indicated) and “mark” will refer to the individual sign. The first part of this essay will provide a brief overview of semiotics. Second, it will outline a general look at trademark law as set forth in the Lanham Act. The third section is a semiotic approach to provide a deeper understanding of trademark law. Finally, the essay will analyze a seminal trademark case whilst using semiotics to address legal meaning within the case. Semiotics teaches that no absolute meaning can be found. This essay, then, attempts to secure at least one particular meaning of the Qualitex case and what it means in trademark law today.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bains, Paul. 2006. The primacy of semiosis: An ontology of relations. Toronto UP.

  2. Barthes, Roland. 1967. Elements of semiology. New York.

  3. Baudrillard, Jean. 1970, 1998. The consumer society: Myths and structures. Sage Publishers.

  4. Beebe, Barton. 2004. The semiotic analysis of trademark law, 51 UCLA L.R. 621, 627 Id. at 630.

  5. Boston Professional hockey Ass’n v. Dallas cap & emblem, 510 F.2d 1004.

  6. Broekman Jan, M. 2009. The Roberta Kevelson law and semiotics seminar course book. Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law. See: (a) Introduction. (b) Peirce and legal semiotics. (c) Postmodernists.

  7. Competition––Third Restatement of Unfair Competition, § 13.

  8. Gorenstein Enters., Inc. v. Quality Care-USA, Inc., (1989) 874 F.2d 43`, 435 (7th Cir.).

  9. Greimas A. J. and Rastier, Francois (1968). The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints. In: Yale French Studies No. 41: Game, Play, Literature. Yale UP.

  10. Kevelson, Roberta. 1988. The law as a system of signs. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lanham Act. 2000. §2(e), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e).

  12. Leschen and Sons. 1906. A. Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co., 201 U.S. 166,71, 26 S.Ct. 425, 426.

  13. Morris, Charles. 1955. Signs, Language and Behavior. George Braziller.

  14. NutraSweet Co v. Stadt Corp. 1990. 917 F.2d 1024, 1028 (CA7).

  15. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 1985. 774 F.2d 1116, 1128 (CA) (Note the term “Fiberglas” is a mark distinguished from the common word “fiberglass” as used within our natural language).

  16. Peirce Charles, S. 1934. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce Vol I & II. In Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, ed. 372.

  17. Qualitex Co v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. 1995. 514 U.S. 159, 115 S.Ct. 1300f.

  18. USC. 2000. 15 USC.

  19. Webster, Merriam Webster Dictionary, at: www.merriam-webster.com.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghann L. Garrett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garrett, M.L. Trademarks as a System of Signs: A Semiotic Look at Trademark Law. Int J Semiot Law 23, 61–75 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-009-9131-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-009-9131-7

Keywords

Navigation