Mechanisms for Limiting Trade Mark Rights to Further Competition and Free Speech

Article
  • 473 Downloads

Abstract

This article evaluates the different mechanisms that nations use to limit trade mark rights to promote competition, free speech, and other public interests. It shows how EU and US trade mark laws seem to be converging towards a similar model which includes both (1) specific statutory defenses to trade mark violations and (2) trade mark doctrines which give courts flexibility to permit unauthorized uses of marks that further the legitimate interests of the accused infringer and the public. Such a development should be welcomed and the article urges other nations to consider adopting one or both of these mechanisms for limiting trade mark rights to better protect the public interest in trade mark disputes. Finally, a proposal for reform is suggested. It consists of three parts: (1) domestic legislatures should revise their trade mark statutes to add more mandatory and specific limitations on trade mark rights that courts must apply in trade mark disputes, (2) legislatures should also enact permissive statutory provisions that give courts discretion to further limit trade mark rights and allow socially beneficial uses of marks that are not covered by the statutory limitations, and (3) legislators should explain clearly what are the exact functions of a trade mark worth protecting, the goals of trade mark law, and/or the public interests that may be relevant when courts resolve trade mark disputes.

Keywords

Trade mark law Free speech Fundamental rights Public interests Competition 

References

  1. Barrett M (2006) Internet trademark suits and the demise of “trademark use”. UC Davis Law Rev 39:371Google Scholar
  2. Barrett M (2007) Domain names, trademarks, and the First Amendment—searching for meaningful boundaries. Conn Law Rev 39:973Google Scholar
  3. Bartholomew M (2009) Copyright, trademark, and secondary liability after Grokster. Colum J Law Arts 32:445Google Scholar
  4. Bartow A (2004) Likelihood of confusion. San Diego Law Rev 41:721Google Scholar
  5. Burrell R, Handler M (2010) Australian trade mark law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinwoodie GB (2009) Lewis & Clark law school ninth distinguished IP lecture—developing defenses in trademark law. Lewis Clark Law Rev 13:99Google Scholar
  7. Dinwoodie GB, Janis MD (2007a) Confusion over use—contextualism in trademark law. Iowa Law Rev 92:1597Google Scholar
  8. Dinwoodie GB, Janis MD (2007b) Lessons from the trademark use debate. Iowa Law Rev 92:1703Google Scholar
  9. Dinwoodie GB, Janis MD (2010) Trade dress and design law. Aspen Publishers, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Dogan SL, Lemley MA (2007) Grounding trademark law through trademark use. Iowa Law Rev 92:1669Google Scholar
  11. Dreyfuss RC (1990) Expressive genericity—trademarks as language in the Pepsi generation. Notre Dame L Rev 65:397Google Scholar
  12. Dreyfuss RC (2008) Reconciling trademark rights and expressive values—how to stop worrying and learn to love ambiguity. In: Dinwoodie GB, Janis MD (eds) Trademark law and theory—a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 261–293Google Scholar
  13. Geiger C (2004) Fundamental rights, a safeguard for the coherence of intellectual property law? Int Rev Intell Prop Compet Law 35:268Google Scholar
  14. Geiger C (2006) “Constitutionalising” intellectual property law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in the European Union. Int Rev Intell Prop Compet Law 37:371Google Scholar
  15. Geiger C (2007a) Trade marks and freedom of expression—the proportionality of criticism. Int Rev Intell Prop Compet Law 38:317Google Scholar
  16. Geiger C (2007b) Copyright and the freedom to create—a fragile balance. Int Rev Intell Prop Compet Law 38:707Google Scholar
  17. Geiger C (2012) Fundamental rights as common principles of European (and international) intellectual property law. In: Ohly A (ed) Common principles of European intellectual property law. Mohr Siebeck, Germany, pp 223–238Google Scholar
  18. Grinvald LC (2011) Shaming trademark bullies. Wis Law Rev 2011:625Google Scholar
  19. Grynberg M (2009) Things are worse than we think—trademark defenses in a “formalist” age. Berkeley Technol Law J 24:897Google Scholar
  20. Gulasekaram P (2005) Policing the border between trademarks and free speech—protecting unauthorized trademark use in expressive works. Wash Law Rev 80:887Google Scholar
  21. Horowitz SJ (2012) Copyright’s asymmetric uncertainty. Univ Chic Law Rev 79:331Google Scholar
  22. Kozinski A (1993) Trademarks unplugged. N Y Univ Law Rev 68:960Google Scholar
  23. Kratzke WP (1991) Normative economic analysis of trademark law. Memphis State Univ Law Rev 21:199Google Scholar
  24. Kur A (2011a) In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Kur A (2011b) Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test—how much room to walk the middle ground? In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 208–261Google Scholar
  26. Kur A (2013) Evaluation of the functioning of the EU trade mark system: the trademark study. In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property—achievements and new perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kur A, Grosse Ruse-Kahn H (2011) Enough is enough–the notion of binding ceilings in international intellectual property protection. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 359–407Google Scholar
  28. LaFrance M (2007) No reason to live—dilution laws as unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech. S C Law Rev 58:709Google Scholar
  29. LaFrance M (2011) Passing off and unfair competition: conflict and convergence in competition law. Mich State Law Rev 2011:1413Google Scholar
  30. Lemley MA (1999) The modern Lanham Act and the death of common sense. Yale Law J 108:1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemley MA, McKenna MP (2010) Owning mark(et)s. Mich Law Rev 109:137Google Scholar
  32. Lessig L (2008) Remix: making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. Penguin, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leval PN (2004) Trademark—champion of free speech. Colum J Law Arts 27:187Google Scholar
  34. Lipton JD (2006) Commerce versus commentary—gripe sites, parody, and the First Amendment in cyberspace. Wash Univ Law Rev 84:1327Google Scholar
  35. Lipton J (2010) Internet domain names, trademarks and free speech. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  36. Lunney GS Jr (1999) Trademark monopolies. Emory Law J 48:367Google Scholar
  37. Manta I (2012) Bearing down on trademark bullies. Fordham Intell Prop Media Entertain Law J 22:853Google Scholar
  38. McCarthy JT (2013) McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition, 4th edn, vol 1, 2, 4Google Scholar
  39. McGeveran W (2008a) Rethinking trademark fair use. Iowa Law Rev 94:49Google Scholar
  40. McGeveran W (2008b) Four free speech goals for trademark law. Fordham Intell Prop Media Entertain Law J 18:1205Google Scholar
  41. McGeveran W (2010a) The trademark fair use reform act. Boston Univ Law Rev 90:2267Google Scholar
  42. McGeveran W (2010b) Life in the fast lane—of presumptions, defenses, and burdens. IP Theory 1:25. Available at http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ipt/vol1/iss1/2 Google Scholar
  43. McKenna MP (2011) Probabilistic knowledge of third party trademark infringement. Stan Technol Law Rev 2011:10Google Scholar
  44. Rahmatian A (2008) Trade marks and human rights. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights, vol 18. Kluwer Law Int. BV, The Netherlands, pp 335–357Google Scholar
  45. Ramsey LP (2003) Descriptive trademarks and the First Amendment. Ten Law Rev 70:1095Google Scholar
  46. Ramsey LP (2008) Increasing First Amendment scrutiny of trademark law. SMU Law Rev 61:381Google Scholar
  47. Ramsey LP (2010a) Brandjacking on social networks—trademark infringement by impersonation of markholders. Buffalo L Rev 58:851Google Scholar
  48. Ramsey LP (2010b) Free speech and international obligations to protect trademarks. Yale J Int L 35:405Google Scholar
  49. Riis T, Schovsbo J (2007) Users’ rights: reconstructing copyright policy on utilitarian grounds. Eur Intell Prop Rev 29:1Google Scholar
  50. Riis T, Schovsbo J (2008) Brugerrettigheder i varemærkeretten (Users rights in trade mark law). In: Bakardjieva A et al. (eds) Festskrift till Marianne Levin. Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm, pp 503–520Google Scholar
  51. Riis T, Schovsbo J (2012) Compulsory licenses and trade marks. Eur Intell Prop Rev 34:651Google Scholar
  52. Rosenblatt EL (2009) Rethinking the parameters of trademark use in entertainment. Fla Law Rev 61:1011Google Scholar
  53. Rothman JE (2005) Initial interest confusion—standing at the crossroads of trademark law. Cardozo Law Rev 27:105Google Scholar
  54. Sakulin W (2011) Trademark protection and freedom of expression—an inquiry into the conflict between trademark rights and freedom of expression under European law. Kluwer Law Int, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  55. Schovsbo J (2011) Fire and water make steam—redefining the role of competition law in TRIPS. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 308–358Google Scholar
  56. Senftleben MRF (2011a) Keyword advertising in Europe—how the internet challenges recent expansions of EU trademark protection. Conn J Int Law 27:39Google Scholar
  57. Senftleben MRF (2011b) Overprotection and protection overlaps in intellectual property law—the need for horizontal fair use defenses. In: Kur A, Mizaras V (eds) The structure of intellectual property law—can one size fit all? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 136–181. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1597123
  58. Senftleben MRF (2013) Adapting EU trademark law to new technologies: back to basics? In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property—achievements and new perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 137–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tushnet R (2007) Trademark law as commercial speech regulation. S C Law Rev 58:737Google Scholar
  60. Tushnet R (2008a) Gone in sixty milliseconds—trademark law and cognitive science. Tex Law Rev 86:507Google Scholar
  61. Tushnet R (2008b) Truth and advertising–the Lanham Act and commercial speech doctrine. In: Dinwoodie GB, Janis MD (eds) Trademark law and theory—a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 294–323Google Scholar
  62. Weckström K (2007) The lawfulness of criticizing big business—comparing approaches to the balancing of societal interests behind trademark protection. Lewis Clark Law Rev 11:671Google Scholar
  63. Weckström K (2012) Liability for trademark infringement for internet service providers. Marq Intell Prop Law Rev 16:1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of San Diego School of LawSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Information and Innovation LawUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations