Scope Of Trademark Protection Research Articles

The Influence of Good Will on the Scope of Trademark Protection: Observed from the History of American Trademark Law

The Influence of Good Will on the Scope of Trademark Protection: Observed from the History of American Trademark Law

Debranding and rebranding of goods: the Mitsubishi decision and the scope of trade mark protection based on function theory

Debranding and rebranding of goods: the Mitsubishi decision and the scope of trade mark protection based on function theory

The Hybrid Trademark and Free Speech Right Forged from Matal v. Tam

An analysis of the potential ramifications of the 2017 Matal v. Tam U.S. Supreme Court case and the implications of the hybrid trademark and free speech right that has been forged in its wake. In permitting trademarks to be allowed over the Disparagement Clause even if they are offensive, First Amendment rights are now inextricably intertwined with the scope of trademark protection. This paper examines the holding of the Matal v. Tam case and also attempts to predict the behavior of trademark filings and the development of trademark law after its holding.

Moving forward: the new trade mark provisions on goods in transit

After years of vigorous debate, agreement on the EU trade mark package was finally reached. On 23 December 2015, Trade Mark Directive 2015/2436 was published. 1 One day later, on 24 December 2015, EU Trade Mark Regulation 2015/2424 followed. 2 Article 9(4) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 2015/2424 and Article 10(4) of the Trade Mark Directive 2015/2436 are the focus of our commentary. Both provisions introduce a new category of trade mark infringement and broaden the scope of trade mark protection. Next to the common and well-known existing types of exclusive rights conferred to the trade mark proprietor, a new exclusive right is added, namely the right to act against goods in transit. ... A solution to the transit issue was necessary in the aftermath of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Philips/Nokia case 3 .

Towards Recognizing and Reconciling the Multiplicity of Values and Interests in Trademark Law

This paper argues that courts should follow the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Winters v. National Resources Defense Counsel, Inc. and eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. in curbing the harmful effects of so-called bullies or extortionists by limiting the grant of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Current trademark doctrine and policy fail to adequately account for all of the relevant interests and values implicated in trademark disputes, and the consumer search cost theory fails to provide adequate limits on the scope of trademark protection. Thus, courts should balance the relevant interests and values recognized by current trademark doctrine and policy and other concerns such as freedom of expression under the public interest test for injunctive relief. This paper also proposes that courts should not consider evidence of policing of a mark in, for example, determining the mark's strength.

A Brief Note on L’Oreal and the Prohibition on Free Riding

In L'Oreal v Bellure the European Court of Justice decided that free riding, or taking advantage of the reputation enjoyed by an earlier mark, is actionable per se. In reaching this conclusion, the ECJ significantly expanded the scope of trade mark protection. This comment argues that L'Oreal's broad prohibition on free riding is theoretically unsound, runs counter to the thrust of European trade mark law and could negatively impact on the competitiveness of the European marketplace.