This is my Domain - US Supreme Court Decides on the Registration of Generic ".com" Domains as Trademarks

Since the advent of the world wide web, domain names' value to their owners have skyrocketed, with some, such as Google.com, being valued by some at roughly $31 billion. Although the valuation of that domain is a little ridiculous, being able to have the right domain at the right time can in itself create a business opportunity and thus be very valuable. However, domain names and their registration and trademarks has been a hot-button issue for some time, since the inclusion of ".com" along with a descriptive element might not be enough to allow for their registration. The USPTO has had a long-standing position where the inclusion of ".com" with a generic word would render that mark as generic and therefore ineligible for registration. This position has since been challenged, and the matter went up all the way to the US Supreme Court, which handed down its opinion earlier this week.

The case of USPTO v Booking.com BV concerned the registration of the mark "Booking.com" by, you guessed it, Booking.com BV, which is a site specialized in the booking of hotels for travelers. At first instance the mark was refused registration as the USPTO deemed it to be generic under the above rule, meaning the name would only have the descriptive meaning to consumers of the service and would not signify that particular website to consumers. Booking.com challenged the ruling, and ultimately took the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Handing down the majority's judgment, Justice Ginsburg first discussed the registration of trademarks overall, particularly the requirements for a mark to be registered. This includes that the the mark has to be one "...by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others", i.e. it has to be distinctive. Word marks, such as the domain above, can be distinctive in a sliding scale of sorts, namely (from least to most distinctive)  (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful. A mark will have to achieve distinctiveness specifically "...in the minds of the public".

Justice Ginsburg then moved onto considering whether the mark in question is registrable or not. Booking.com applied to register the domain (and other variants of it, including visual features) as a trademark in relation to travel-related services; however, the application, as discussed above, was rejected at first instance. 

The main question the Supreme Court had to therefore consider is whether the term "Booking.com" is generic, specifically naming "...a “class” of goods or services, rather than any particular feature or exemplification of the class". As the domain is also a compound term (consisting of "Booking" and ".com" as separate elements), the Court would have to consider its meaning as a whole and not in isolation of those parts. Its meaning would have to be considered in the light of its meaning to consumers. In short, as noted by the Court, the consideration is "...whether “Booking.com” is generic turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies to consumers the class of online hotel-reservation services".

The Court quickly noted that under evidence, consumers don't perceive the domain as being generic for hotel-reservation services, and as such, the term cannot be generic. The USPTO argued that, irrespective of that evidence, the term should be seen as generic since when a generic term is combined with a generic top-level domain like “.com,” the resulting combination is generic, barring exceptional circumstances. 

Finally, the Court considered whether the registration of  “generic.com” terms as trademarks would hinder competition, i.e. prevent a competitor from using the term "booking" when describing their services. The Court outright rejected this notion, noting that the risk of deterrence of using a term exists in relation to all descriptive marks. Even if a competitor uses that term, provided it's done in good faith, they would most likely be protected by fair use. 

The Court subsequently affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and allowed the registration of the mark as it was not considered generic.

The case is a very important one, and surprisingly very late into the existence of domain names. It's important for brands that have more descriptive names to be able to potentially register their name as a trademark, particularly if it's in relation to a specific domain that is the heart and soul of that business. Competitors should be adequately protected by fair use and other similar doctrines, allowing for the use of those terms in describing their business, while allowing for sufficient protection of legitimate registered trademarks for those domains. 

The One and Only - Advocate General Hogan Considers the Limits of Protected Geographical Indicators and their Individual Terms

Protected Geographical Indicators (or PGIs for short) are a crucial part of being able to identify local goods that have a particular quality and/or manufacturing methods that are unique to a particular region of the EU. Seeing a PGI in packaging can guarantee that the goods you're buying are legitimate, whether it is looking for that special something in Bolognian Mortadella or Gruyère cheese, it is key to distinguishing the 'real stuff' from the pretenders. Even so, sometimes the PGIs can become almost generic or the terminology used within it separated to hint at the PGI without actually containing the whole term. That being said, where does one draw the line when naming products similarly to PGIs? Luckily, the CJEU is slated to decide this question, and Advocate General Hogan gave their thoughts on this earlier this summer.

The case of Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v BALEMA GmbH concerned balsamic vinegar from the region of Modena – "Aceto Balsamico di Modena" (PGI application here). The product is an aged, flavoured vinegar made from grapes. The name does contain the word 'balsam', which has colloquially become to mean the same product, but historically it was used to denote a balm or a product with healing properties. Balema produce a German 'balsamic vinegar' called "Balsamico" made from Baden wine. Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena, a consortium of producers of Modena balsamic vinegar, took Balema to court for the infringement of their PGI. Balema challenged this, with the CJEU left to decide whether the individual word components of the PGI could be protected as PGIs within the registration, or would be free to be used by others in isolation from the whole PGI as they were generic terms..

The AG started off with defining what amounted to a 'generic term'. Under Article Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012, a generic term is defined as "…the names of products which, although relating to the place, region or country where the product was originally produced or marketed, have become the common name of a product in the Union". This means that the PGI has become generic and no longer denotes the quality and characteristics that one would expect from that PGI. This also includes words that have always been generic, even if included within the PGI.

Ptahhotep was no fool when it came to new types of balms
(Source: AHRECS)

The AG added that, in order to determine whether a term has become generic, what is decisive is "…not necessarily whether a term has a particular meaning in a given language but rather whether it lacks a current geographical connotation". The same applies to terms that could be considered as being generic (i.e. mean something specific in one language), but do still retain their geographical connotation, therefore potentially avoiding becoming generic. Adding onto this, even if in one Member State the term is considered to be generic, it does not mean the term has become generic for the whole of the EU.

The specific test courts would have to apply is whether "…the manner in which these words would be perceived by the ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect", i.e. does the average person consider the term generic or not.

The AG then moved onto considering the interpretation of Article 1 of Regulation No 583/2009 which denotes the registration of the specific PGI. The Regulation didn't provide any limitations or qualifications for the registration of the term 'Aceto Balsamico di Modena', or whether its components themselves would be generic or non-geographical terms separately from the PGI. The AG does point out that previous decisions have indicated that this does not mean that the terms would be protected individually as well as within the whole PGI.

In the light of the Regulation, the AG considered that the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Aceto Balsamico’ and ‘Balsamico’ were generic terms, and protection was only afforded to the whole PGI. This was due to the common nature of the words, and the particular emphasis made by the Regulation on the entirety of the term.

The opinion is very interesting, albeit unsurprising, as the monopolization of 'common' words (even if used less these days) would be detrimental to the wider internal market. The protection of region specific goods is important, but this also needs to be balanced with the allowance for the use of words that describe goods, rather than their specific geographical origin. It remains to be seen if the CJEU agree with the AG, but this writer for one thinks they'll agree.

It's all the Same - US Court of Appeals Considers When a Trademark is Generic

Having a well-known brand along with an innovative product can be a cruel mistress to many companies. As your product becomes the market leader, and your brand 'the brand' within that category, there is a risk that your trademark can come under threat of becoming generic. This writer for one has caught himself many times asking someone to "Google" something (found to not be a generic term) or referring to sticky bandages as "Band-Aids" - both of which are examples of misusing a trademark and illustrate the perils of becoming 'the brand'. This issue is rarely litigated extensively in the courts, but a recent case in the US Court of Appeals took it on again and giving us yet more insight into how the courts determine if a trademark is generic or not.

The case of Booking.com BV v USPTO concerned applications by Booking.com to register the name "BOOKING.COM" in a few variations. The marks were initially rejected by both the USPTO and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which considered that the mark was generic as applied to the relevant services, finally succeeding with the District Court. The matter was ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeals, who was tasked with determining whether the mark is generic or not.

In terms of provenance of whether a mark is generic or not, according to the Court, the onus lies on the USPTO to prove this is indeed the case.

The Court then moved onto setting out the test to determine whether a mark is generic or not. The test consists of three factors: (i) identify the class of product or service to which use of the mark is relevant; (ii) identify the relevant consuming public; and (iii) determine whether the primary significance of the mark to the relevant public is as an indication of the nature of the class of the product or services to which the mark relates, which suggests that it is generic, or an indication of the source or brand, which suggests that it is not generic. Once a mark has been deemed to be generic, it cannot become distinctive.

Both parties agreed that, in relation to the first and second steps, the mark is used to identify the class or product to which it belongs (i.e. making hotel reservations for others) and the relevant purchasing public consists of consumers who use hotel reservation services offered via the internet or in person. What remains at issue is the third step, i.e. "…the public's understanding of what the term BOOKING.COM primarily refers to".

In considering the public's understanding of a term the courts may look at "…purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings and dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers, and other publications". To ascertain whether the same term is understood to primarily refer to the service or the source the Courts consider the proposed mark as a whole.

The Court subsequently had to consider whether the USPTO's evidence that the public use "booking.com" generically, and whether the inclusion of a top-level domain to a generic second-level domain 'booking' means the mark is necessarily generic.

The USPTO failed to show in their evidence that the mark had become generic. Even though other domain names featured the term 'booking', these alone didn't make the mark generic since the term 'booking' is used to book a multitude of things, not just hotels. Consumers, therefore, wouldn't necessarily understand the mark to automatically mean the provision of hotel booking services. Booking.com's consumer survey also indicated that over 70% of consumers identified the mark as meaning the company, and not just any booking service for hotels. The mark was descriptive, and not generic. The Court of Appeals, therefore, rejected the USPTO's first argument.

The USPTO then argued that the addition of the second-level domain ".com" meant that the mark was necessarily generic.

The Court followed by expanding on its considerations of compound marks, like Booking.com. This focusses on how the public perceives the mark as a whole, not simply as a collation of separate constituent parts. Leading from this the Court noted that the addition of ".com" doesn't in itself make a mark generic, as the public's perception would have to be considered in the light of the whole mark. Additionally, even though the mark describes the activity within the website "...it does not necessarily follow that the public commonly understands the mark to refer to the service broadly speaking". The Court, therefore, rejected the argument on the addition of ".com" making a mark generic.

The Court finally noted that, even though the mark does describe the activity of booking something via a website (specifically hotels), it doesn't prevent others from using the mark in a different context, e.g. booking a car rental or travel tickets.

The case does provide further discussion of an important facet of trademark law in the US, which isn't often touched upon by the courts. While the subject matter is somewhat established, it sets out in more detail the world of trademarks in an online environment, which is growing in importance as we become more and more entwined in an online marketplace.

Distinct as Ever - Google Not a Generic Term, Says US Court of Appeal

When a particular brand becomes hugely successful, it more often than not becomes very valuable, but even the biggest of players are not protected from the ill effects of popularity. A big problem that many brands face is the generification of their brand, i.e. it becomes so well-known and associated with a particular type of good or service that consumers use it to refer to all of those goods or services. Through this the distinctiveness of the trademark becomes diluted, and potentially is lost entirely. Many companies will therefore fight to protect their brands and to establish proper trademark use guidelines (for example, INTA has a set of guidelines for online use) to combat this issue. A case that has dealt with the 'generification' or 'genericisation' of trademarks has been going on in the US for over 5 years (discussion on the first instance decision here), culminating in a Court of Appeal decision in mid-March.

The case of Elliott v Google Inc. deals with the registration of over 760 domain names by David Elliot, which incorporated both the word "Google" and other well-known brands, such as Disney, in the domain name. Google subsequently objected to the registrations, lodging a complaint at the National Arbitration Forum (handling the domain name disputes for the provider). NAF ruled in Google's favor, and the complaint then lodged proceedings in the Arizona District Court for the cancellation of the Google trademarks under 15 USC section 1064(3) as being "...primarily understood as a generic term universally used to describe the act of internet searching". Elliott's case failed at first instance for lack of evidence as to this fact, and the matter since was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The main question for the Court therefore was whether 'Google' had become generic through use; however, as noted by the Court: "…The mere fact that the public sometimes uses a trademark as the name for a unique product does not immediately render the mark generic". Consumers would have to consistently, and for a prolonged period of time, use the marl for it to become arguably generic. Judge Tallman set out the legal test for this, which looks at "…whether the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is [now] the product [and not] the producer".

Judge Tallman continued that the claim for the genericness of a product or service always has to relate to a particular type of goods or services the mark is registered for. Elliott had defined this as 'the act of searching the internet'; however, the marks are not registered for these types of services. The Court rejected his argument, due to a lack of particular good or services designated for which the mark has become generic for.

Elliott's main argument in the proceedings related to the potential use of 'Google' as a verb to describe the act of searching the internet (using Google or not) by the relevant public, having therefore become generic. The Court rejected Elliott's argument, since he failed on two fronts: he failed to recognize that a claim of genericide must always relate to a particular type of good or service, and that he erroneously assumed that verb use automatically constitutes generic use.

Firstly, the Court highlighted Elliott's lack of specificity in setting out the particular type of goods or service the verb relates to. While he did set out that 'Google' related to the act of searching the internet in general, there was no inherent link between the claim of genericide and a particular type of good or service. In other words, Elliott's claim only relates to a broad, undefined action, rather than a particular good or service the mark is registered for.

Junior was unnerved by his own 'googling'

Secondly, the use of a trademark as a verb, according to the Court, does not automatically mean it has become generic. Elliott's argument was that a trademark should only be used as an adjective, and should it be used as a verb it would lose its source-identifying function and become generic. What the Court highlighted as the key consideration, as set out in Coca-Cola Company v Overland Inc., is "what… customers [were] thinking or whether they had a particular source in mind [for the goods or services in question]". What remains key is the consideration is the customers' inner thought processes regarding the goods or services, irrespective of the trademarks use as, for example, a verb or a noun.

This has been referred to as 'discriminate' and 'indiscriminate' use, where the consumer uses the mark as a verb or otherwise either with consideration of the underlying source or not, i.e. being happy with an alternate product or service being used instead of the namesake. The Court assessed that the main inquiry would be "…whether the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a generic name for internet search engines or as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular", not simply has the mark has been used as a verb or not.

The Court then moved on to evidentiary matters. In determining whether the mark in question would have become generic, the claimant is "…required to identify sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the primary significance of the word "google" to the relevant public is as a name for internet search engines generally and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular".

Elliott's evidence largely comprised of consumer surveys and generic use by media and consumers at large. Elliott also produced three expert witnesses, who argued that 'google' is used in a generic sense when it's used as a verb. In most of the evidence the word 'google' had simply been used as a verb, which, as the Court pointed out above, does not in itself make a word generic.

The Court concluded that Elliott had failed to produce sufficient evidence that the relevant public primarily understands the word "google" as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.

The case shows that some battles might not be worth fighting. The evidentiary hurdle that a claim has to climb over in a claim for genericness is quite high, and as this case shows, even the biggest of players might not be as exposed as you think. Trademarks offer a versatile and flexible set of rights, which cannot be thwarted by a simple claim of verb use; however, rightsholders still need to remain vigilant over any claims of genericness from third-parties, especially if the name is of some note.

Source: JDSupra

Words in Action - Trademarks as Verbs

This writer, for one, will fully admit to often using very well-known brands as the descriptive term for all such items, for example calling all plasters Band-Aids and all cotton-tipped plastic cleaning things (a technical term, undoubtedly) as Q-Tips, regardless of all of those terms having been, or still being, registered trademarks. While my misstep in potentially diluting these valuable brands in using them in this way can be seen as a small error, or even wholly unnoticeable in the grand scheme of things, it still brings light to an issue all trademark holders face; the potential of losing your mark to genericization. While this topic has been discussed on this very blog before quite extensively, the use of trademarks as verbs specifically has been left a bit in the dark, yet is illustrative of a newer problem technology companies especially will face. Who hasn't said they will 'Google' something, or if they will 'Facebook' their aunt Mary; a grave threat the holders of those particular marks will lose sleep over. One such giant facing a recent challenge to its widely recognized trademark is Google, which posed an interesting question to all trademark holders.

The case in question is Elliot v Google Inc, where the claimant, David Elliot, registered over 760 different domain names combining the word 'Google' and another brand or a famous person, for example googledisney.com, or with generic terms such as googletvnews.com. As you might have guessed, Google has trademarked the term 'Google' in a number of variants; two of which were at issue in the case: US trademark 2884502 and 2806075. These two marks encompass the word 'Google' in several categories, such as web indexes and computer software - promptly leading to Google pursuing the domain names through the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Process (UDRP). In his defense Mr. Elliot asserted that the term 'Google' had become generic and could therefore be used by him (and others) without infringing on Google's marks. The domain names Mr. Elliot had registered were transferred to Google in the UDRP, which prompted Mr. Elliot to pursue the matter further in the US District Court of Arizona.

What Mr. Elliot's argument largely states, and what the court had to assess, was whether the term 'Google' had effectively become ubiquitous with the verb 'googling' - defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "[s]earch[ing] for information about (someone or something) on the Internet using the search engine Google" - rendering it generic rather than distinctive as to Google and/or Google's services. As trademarks need to specifically distinguish the origin of goods or services, becoming a generic verb can be the mark's end.

Stacy was unnerved after 'googling' herself

What the court had to determine was whether the mark's "...primary significance" was that of distinguishing the goods or services from other similar ones. The test was phrased well by Justice Brandeis in Kellogg v National Biscuit: "...the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer". This is highly important, as if a product is named as the major brand (i.e. if you refer to all plasters as 'Band-Aids') in general terms, the mark loses its status as the seal of origin for that brand, or as stated by Justice O'Scannlain in Filipino Yellow Pages: "...if the primary significance of the trademark is to describe the type of product rather than the producer, the trademark is a generic term and cannot be a valid trademark".

Using a trademark as a verb does not automatically change the primary significance of that mark, and a mark, such as 'Google', can be used for both the designation of an origin for goods and services and as a term describing the searching of information via the search engine - noted by the court in the case. This synecdochian dual-functionality of a mark is wholly valid; however, should the perception of the public change drastically as to the meaning of the word, i.e. if most people would believe and/or use the term "to google" to mean using any search engine online to seek information, then the mark can be determined to be compromised, even with this accepted dual-functionality. This was phrased well by Justice McNamee (the name seems more than appropriate considering the case's subject matter): "It is thus contrary to both the letter and spirit of trademark law to strip a mark of legal protection solely because the mark—cultivated by diligent marketing, enforcement, and quality control—has become so strong and widespread that the public adopts the mark to describe that act of using the class of products or services to which the mark belongs". Arguably this argument holds well, and this writer for one agrees wholeheartedly with the court's view, as the stripping of a mark's distinctive nature the moment it becomes even partially descriptive of a class of products or services would run contrary to the value given by trademarks to brands and their place in a given class.

In the end the action failed, as Mr. Elliot failed to demonstrate how the mark 'Google' had turned generic, as the public still strongly perceived it as part and parcel to the company, not just internet search engines or internet searching at large. The case does bring light an important issue, and often something that the general public will not think about; how our daily use of terminology, especially trademarks, can alter their value. Some examples include 'Xerox' (become a term for all photocopying) and 'Thermos' (used as a term for all heat-retaining drinks containers), which have become generic due to their use as the identifying term in a given class. Due to this the International Trademark Association has even issued guidelines on the proper use of trademarks, which most of us will find potentially excessive, yet is quite important. As can be seen, trademarks are a dangerous beast, especially when they become famous to the point of ubiquity; however for most this risk is quite worth it.

Source: JDSupra

Generic Stuff - Food Packaging and Intellectual Property Law

Remembering back fondly to ones childhood often elicits images of Saturday mornings, watching cartoons and eating cereal poured from colorful cereal boxes. Yet a shadows of this memory is when your parents buy the generic brand, often simply grabbing something from a store shelf thinking it's the brand that their child loves, missing the folly in their ignorance and disappointing their young ones with less flavorful alternatives to their desired sugary morning treats. Thinking back, the disappointment probably was not as palpable as my memory serves me, but this illustrates a point of contention in intellectual property law; how close can you brand your foodstuffs as a generic brand when compared to more popular variants of a given food item? The goodwill and reputation, which many food manufacturers strive for for years, even decades, often seems easily exploited in the sphere of food packaging, yet, at least prima facie, their goodwill and make-up should potentially be well within the sphere of intellectual property law, and therefore quite protectable. The extent of this protection merits further discussion, especially in today's highly competitive world within the shopping jungle of grocery stores.

What prompted this writer's interest in this topic was an article published on the IPKat (originally brought up in an article on Yahoo! News), which discussed the seemingly blatant copying of popular brand items by Aldi in their store brand equivalents, especially in the remit of chips sold in a tubular container, and the mentioned use of similar packaging in cereals. Could Aldi's practices infringe on the brands' rights in the UK or abroad?

Some protection could be offered by copyright, should the packaging contain a work which can be categorized as protectable under the subject matter. Images on packaging, or even more stylistic or intricate designs, could potentially be considered an artistic work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (and similar laws abroad), and even the writing used on the box (stories, challenges and other items on the back for example). The image has to have no artistic merit to it for it to be protected, but still has to be considered original. Although not the primary avenue for protecting packaging, it can still address the issue at a much shallower level. Arguably most goods will not infringe on copyright, even if they resemble the name brand goods quite a lot, as you would have to make a copy of the work (in simplistic terms), and a mere imitation might not be enough to argue copyright infringement, as a box for foodstuffs would be a long-shot to argue as a form of expression worth protecting.

Trademarks, under the Trademarks Act 1994 (and other similar provisions), are the more 'obvious' choice when it comes to protecting your brands, and certain foodstuffs are covered under the subject matter such as the name "Pringles" or "Froot Loops". Primarily trademarks only assist in the protection of names and logos (such as Captain Rik), and as such are much weaker when the logo, name or other trademark isn't directly copied or a similar variant used. Clearly, should Aldi (or any other business) deviate from those, they would arguably be in the clear.

The darker side of store brands: underpaid mascots

As for design rights, unregistered designs under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988  protect the shape or configuration of a good; i.e. how it looks like form wise, and not in terms of it's 'get-up'. This would be hard for Aldi (or others) to infringe unless a good has a very specific shape to it, such as a triangle box in stead of the typical box design. Under the registered designs regime through the Registered Designs Act 1949, a design can be registered should the appearance in part or as a whole have a specific look to it, including colors, shapes and even textures. The design has to have individual character, which can be simply said to entail something which is unique to that product, and isn't too generic, while also having to be novel. Arguably this is the hurdle where most foodstuff packaging stumbles in registered designs, as it would be nearly impossible to say that merely a certain color scheme or variation thereof would be novel and individual to that particular item. This in mind it is very possible for generic brands to imitate the look of a cereal box, even if the color scheme would be very identifiable for that particular brand.

In the US there is the concept of what is often referred to as 'trade dress', which is protected under 15 USC section 1125, making it quite usable in this instance, although not in a UK context. Under the Act a product can infringe upon the trade dress of another product under certain circumstances: "[If it] 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, or... in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities". Arguably this would be very hard to prove, at least prima facie, but should a brand take the time and effort to compile sufficient evidence as to likely confusion and detriment on their end, trade dress could be a useful tool in the area of consumer goods. In the UK an avenue functioning much akin to the US provision above would be passing off (discussed more in depth on this very blog here); however the threshold of proof required is very hard to overcome, especially in an instance where the passing off isn't obvious and clear.

As one can see the world of consumer goods and foodstuffs is a treacherous and difficult area of law in which to wage your battles, and arguably most brand owners will not benefit in fighting this fight. Superior quality, goodwill and marketing will serve a better purpose than paying your lawyers to take on Aldi for its generic items; however as a legal professional it is a bit of a no-no to admit this. One can still appreciate the impact of generic goods and confusion related to them, with studies indicating that consumers are very likely to buy store brand products when they look like the name brand item, and a relatively high percentage of purchases having been mistakes due to the similarities. In the end this would be a matter which would have to be addressed by the legislature, but in a competitive world having choice and a cheaper option can still be good for business and the consumer - just not necessarily the brand owner.

Retrospective - Genericization of Trademarks

The name of a product can often be an incredibly strong identifier of a certain type of goods. Think of Aspirin, Cellophane, Yo-Yo, Escalator or even Heroin, and you automatically associate them with a particular type of good as opposed to a particular brand of goods. This is called the genericization of a trademark; where the trademark has become so ubiquitous of a type of good it loses its distinctiveness towards a particular brand of goods.

A pillow you can sleep on AND eat

A case which illustrated the genericization of a trademark was the case of Kellogg Co v National Biscuit Company. The case dealt with the sale of a product many are even familiar with today called 'Shredded  Wheat' For the uninitiated, this product is a breakfast cereal consisting of pillow-shaped wheat shreds, which was made by both companies. The product was initially made by a company called the Natural Food Company (which underwent a name change to the Shredded Wheat Company later on) since the early 1900s, which was subsequently bought by National Biscuit Company in 1930. The Kellogg's Company had made their own variant of Shredded Wheat since the late 1920s, although they had a similar product produced before that time. The National Biscuit Company subsequently sued Kellogg's for unfair competition for the use of the name 'Shredded Wheat' due to them producing a similar product and using the same name for that product.

In the case there were two considerations that the Federal Court of Delware had to decide on; one relating to the patent of the manufacture of the products, and the aspect of the use of the name. For our consideration the latter part is of more interest, however the patent does affect this particular point to an extent.

In the Court's decision they saw that the National Biscuit Company had no exclusive right to use the term 'Shredded Wheat' in selling their product. According to the Court the term is merely a descriptive one of a pillow-shaped wheat cereal, and the public recognize the name as an identifier of such products, due to Kellogg's ability to make the product (as the patent for the manufacturing method had expired in late 1912). The product had been sold since the late 1890s under the name of 'Shredded Wheat', and the term had not been trademarked until it was attempted to be trademarked by the Natural Food Company in 1905 - which was subsequently refused.

What makes this case peculiar is the inclusion of the name 'Shredded Wheat' as part and parcel of the patent for its manufacture. As the patent for the product's manufacture had gone into the public domain upon its expiry, so had the term which had been used to identify products which were manufactured in that particular way. According to the Court:

"It equally follows from the cessation of the monopoly and the falling of the patented device into the domain of things public that along with the public ownership of the device there must also necessarily pass to the public the generic designation of the thing which has arisen during the monopoly... To say otherwise would be to hold that, although the public had acquired the device covered by the patent, yet the owner of the patent or the manufacturer of the patented thing had retained the designated name which was essentially necessary to vest the public with the full enjoyment of that which had become theirs by the disappearance of the monopoly."

Eating breakfast can be complicated

In other words, the term 'Shredded Wheat' had become generic in the description of pillow-shaped wheat cereal products, and therefore could be used by anyone wishing to make and sell those products. Kellogg's had to merely distinguish its products from the plaintiffs so as to avoid any confusion, and through which a potential action in passing off. This was done through a distinctive look of the Kellogg's box, which did not resemble the one used by the National Biscuit Company, and the actual product differed both in size and appearance slightly from those made by the plaintiff.

The genericization of trademarks is a complex analysis of both the goodwill of the product in question (its reputation and imagine in the mind of the consumer) and other potential factors. It can be argued that even though the Court saw that the patent contained the use of the term 'Shredded Wheat', this would not be the case today. Arguably the use of the same term by Kellogg's could be an act of passing off the product, regardless of the manufacturing methods employed, as the plaintiff had been selling the product for over 20 years prior to Kellogg's adopting the name for its product. The plaintiff's inability to register the trademark would go against their action; however the motives of Kellogg's in the use of the name can be questioned.

Tattoos and Copyright

Tattoos have been a part of culture and expression since as far as 5200 years ago, showcasing the importance of self-expression through various markings and its transcendence through cultures and time. Tattoos vary from simple pictures, such as small birds or flowers, to hugely intricate large tattoos covering most, if not all, of a person's visible skin. Although arguably having become more of a diluted vehicle of expression in modern times, tattoos are still seen as an important way to express one's heritage or culture for people's such as the Maori - but could tattoos infringe copyright?

The pinnacle of tattoo originality

Currently there is no concrete precedent as to tattoos and copyright; however there are instances which might argue that tattoos could potentially fall under copyright. Cases relating to Mike Tyson's (in)famous face tattoo depicted in the Hangover 2 and a lawsuit over Ricky Williams' tattoos which were depicted on the cover of an NFL game in 2004, have all been settled prior to litigation, showcasing a clear reluctance for taking the matter to court. These two cases are by no means the only ones of their kind, but clearly indicate there is value in protecting tattoos. In a recent turn of events the NFL Player's Association has brought up the possibility that players' tattoos could bring copyright infringement lawsuits, further highlighting this potential issue.

Most countries in the common law, such as Australia, the UK and Canada do allow for 'artistic works' to fall under copyright, often encompassing drawings which potentially could contain tattoos within them. With the NFLPA and others raising possible issues relating to tattoos, one can easily argue that a case over tattoos and copyright could carry merit and would be worth consideration by the judiciary. Clearly the power is in the hands of the tattoo artists and their discretion as to whether to sue for copyright infringement in the event that their work is displayed in television, movies or even video games.

Some countries do prescribe provisions which offer protection from copyright infringement in incidental inclusion in television and movies. Australia and the UK for example have such provisions, clearly avoiding copyright infringement should any tattoos be displayed in a television show or a movie purely through their incidental inclusion. This is not to say it offers full indemnity, as in the case of the Hangover 2 the inclusion of the tattoo design was clearly intentional and a vocal point of the plot, possibly not falling under such protection provisions. In addition to this the provisions do not mention the possibility of incidental inclusion in video games, opening up any claims for instances in that particular medium.

Is this original anymore?

What has to also be said are possible hurdles relating to tattoos and originality when claiming for copyright infringement. Cases relating to arguably generic designs, a good example of which is case which dealt with an anchor design on Kate Moss' hand in an advertisement, raise questions whether these designs could actually be protected by copyright. If a design shows no clear ingenuity or inventive spark, one could argue that these designs would not be protected; however more intricate, individual designs could be protected.

Tattoos do present an interesting dilemma when it comes to copyright, and are a subject matter which has not been considered by either the legislature or the judiciary specifically. Whether these issues will ever be taken to court is a long-shot, as the cost of settling is clearly less than litigation, and materials such as tattoos can easily be edited out of pictures, videos and other content which might contain them, therefore avoiding any infringement claims. This writer personally would love to see the matter argued at court, but this seems like an unlikely event at best.

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek