(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant— (a) uses in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive . . . shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.(Emphases added) As the italicized language above makes clear, using a registered trademark in a way that is “likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive” is a violation of the statute, and can be remedied by an action brought by the registrant. Sec. 1125(a) states the infringement cause of action for unregistered trademarks:
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person . . . shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.Under §1125(a), therefore, using any “word, term, name, symbol or device” in a way that is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive” is a violation of the statute. The coverage is parallel to §1114, but broader – it doesn’t require a plaintiff to show use of a registered mark, but covers use of any “word, term, name, symbol or device.” Because the term “trademark” itself is defined, in §1127, to include “any word, name, symbol, or device,” §1125(a) covers any trademark – registered or unregistered – while §1114 only covers marks that have been registered. Finally, while patent and copyright law contain a single cause of action – for “infringement” of the patent or copyright, the Lanham Act (and many State trademark statutes) provide for a cause of action for “infringement” of the trademark and for “dilution” of the trademark. These are different kinds of claims, and each has its own elements, modes of proof, defenses, etc. We will probably not have much occasion to discuss the dilution cause of action in this class – so all I expect you to know about it is that it exists, and that you know nothing about it.2 1 This is, ultimately, derived from the different Constitutional underpinnings of patent and copyright law, on the one hand, and trademark law on the other. Congress is expressly authorized, in Article I, sec. 8, clause 8, to enact laws regarding “exclusive rights” for “Authors and Inventors” – copyright and patent, respectively. By analogy to the “dormant commerce clause” doctrine – where the grant to Congress to “regulate interstate commerce” has been held to divest the States of the power they would otherwise have to regulate interstate commerce – the grant to Congress in Art. I §8 cl. 8 similarly divests the States of their power to enact patent and copyright law. (In addition, the Copyright Act, in §301, contains an explicit provision pre-empting State law). Congress’ power to enact federal trademark law, however, is derived from the general power to regulate interstate commerce; as a consequence, the States retain the power to regulate intra-state use of trademarks. 2 If you are interested, the cause of action for trademark dilution is set forth in §1125(c), which reads, in pertinent part: (1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled . . . to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark. The italicized terms indicate the elements of the dilution claim: that the mark is famous, that the defendant is making commercial use of it, that the defendant’s use began after the mark had become famous, and that the use “causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark.” Dilution is defined (in §1127) as “the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of -- (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception.” (Emphasis added). Sec. 1125(c) sets forth a number of factors that courts “may consider” in determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, including the mark’s distinctiveness, the duration and extent of the use of the mark, the amount of advertising and publicity of the mark. Dilution only provides for a remedy by injunction – no damages are awarded for dilution (“unless the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark”).
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.