On Aug 15, 12:36 pm, Meklar
yahoo.com> wrote:
> False or Fraudulent Registration would be where someone registers a
> trademark using false declarations or representation that indicate
> they have the rights to register the trademark. An example would be
> reading something on the Internet and thinking, "Hey, what a great
> name for that" and then filing a trademark registration in which you
> claim authorship of the mark in question. Since you didn't really
> author it originally then the person who did author it and wanted to
> register it could, with proof, sue based on your false declarations
> during registration.
That's not quite right, because ownership of a mark requires use in
commerce or registration of an intent to use. For example, you've
used the fictional name "Meklar" and thus you could argue you have
some rights in the name as a type of handle, if there's an argument
for it being in commerce. But, now, if someone read something and
thought it was a great idea, then filed an intent to use, that,
however would be legal.
What would probably be more like a fraudulent registration would be a
registration claiming use when no use had occurred. That has to be
one of the stupidest things to do since using a mark in commerce is
trivial, just simply sell a copy of a product to someone you don't
know at a discount. Or put a cheap ad in the newspaper for your
services. Either way, you then have a valid 'use' and can
legitimately file. Since federal registration costs over $200, it
doesn't make much sense not to spend a few bucks to prove usage rather
than risk having a registration canceled for fraud.
> Infringement would mean, of course, the act of infringing on someones
> trademark by using it when you are not allowed to. This one is easy.
> It's things like using a trademarked symbol, picture or name, such as
> the name Gucci or the Olympic Rings symbol, when you don't have
> permission.
>
> Am I close?
Yeah, but of course, there are nuances, that's why lawyers wives have
mink coats. There are some uses a competitor may undertake that are
legal. Pure passing off is not one of them - like putting your
competitor's mark on your product - but a statement like 'compare to
(name of competitor's brand)' is permissible, since you're using it to
show that yours is similar to theirs, as long as you do it in such a
fashion you make it clear that you're not claiming to be the
competitor.
It's like the parody statement I make of how there are two brands of
Snyder's Potato Chips. One is put out by "Snyders of Hanover, PA" and
the other is put out by "Snyders of Berlin, PA". So one of them has a
note on the back that says "We are not affiliated with the child
molesters at (Sniders of _*_)" and the other company has a note that
says "We are not affiliated with the cop killers at (Sniders of _#_)".
> Meklar
Paul
