trademarks rights vs. free speech
DESCRIPTION
Presentation from December 2000 INTA "Trademarks in Cyberspace" panelTRANSCRIPT
T®ADEMARK RIGHTT®ADEMARK RIGHT$versus
FREE SPEECHA contrarian viewA contrarian view
© Ronald D. ColemanGIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY, LLP • New York, NY
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
First PrinciplesThe First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law…”
Axiom: Trademark rights are a limitation on “speech” (expression)
T®ADEMARK RIGHTT®ADEMARK RIGHT$ versus FREE SPEECHFREE SPEECH
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
[W]e cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of
suppressing ideas in the process.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971)
First Principles
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
First Principles
Courts are not to stake out new territory in the trademark domain at the expense of curtailing the
ability of a speaker to communicate his
message.
Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
In determining the outer limits of trademark protection the weight of the risks of confusion and suppression of
expression may tip the scales against trademark protection.
Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 49 (2d Cir. 1989)
First Principles
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Courts are to be particularly reluctant to issue an injunction, even in a Lanham
Act case, where there are delicate questions implicating First Amendment
rights.
Stop Olympic Prison v. United States Olympic Committee, 489 F. Supp. 1112,
1123 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)
First Principles
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
First Principles
A trademark may frequently be the most effective means of focusing attention on the trademark owner or its product, the recognition of exclusive rights encompassing such use would permit the stifling of unwelcome discussion, and is forbidden.
United We Stand Am., Inc. v. United We Stand, Am. N.Y., Inc., 128 F.3d 86, 92, n.3 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1521 (1998)
L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31-33 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1013 (1987)
Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397, 402-03 n.8 (8th Cir 1987)
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
COMMERCIAL SPEECHCOMMERCIAL SPEECH
Communication of information, expression of opinion, recitation of grievances are all deserving of constitutional protection, and are not commerce.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 267 (1964).
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
SOLE purpose of SOLE purpose of expressionexpression
Component parts of a single speech are intertwined Information is not transformed into commercial speech, even if money is
involved. Less protection Rationale, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission
“Four” part test Liquormart v. Rhode Island “misleading” commercial speech is not protected
Prevention of misleading expression No First Amendment protection
False advertising Traditional trademark infringement
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Problems: Trademark dilution
statuteExpansion of trademark rightLimited liability for dilution
Applies only to “famous marks” News commentary is also exempted Noncommercial speech is exempted
Two influential casesPlanned Parenthood Fed’n of Am. v. BucciJews for Jesus v. BrodskyAntidilution: Blurring or Tarnishment
“Blurring and “Tarnishment”
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Antidilution Occurs when…
Plaintiff’s marks appear on plethora of goods Necessary to evaluate overall
impression as a wholeBlurring analysisClear in context of mark’s use
Blurring in Brodsky?Tarnished Jews for Jesus
mark Tarnishment in Brodsky?
Hershey’s
Teletech
Mar’s
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Problems:Problems: Trademark infringement, and more on Brodsky
Likelihood of confusion? Stylized mark - No star in domain name
Prohibits use “in commerce”“In commerce” is akin to “commerce
clause”
§ 32 Liability, Section 1114 § 43 Liability, § 1125 claim Protecting The Thoughtless Consumer
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Protecting The Protecting The Thoughtless ConsumerThoughtless Consumer
The Lanham Act Second circuit explanation
Use of a domain name (1996-1998)
Brodsky case: Represents high watermark of argument Planned Parenthood Web site Brodsky Web site Pre-Brodsky argument
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
Likelihood of Likelihood of ConfusionConfusion
Predominant rationale: Initial interest confusion
Traditional usage of Initial Interest confusion Teletech, supra, 977 F. Supp. At
1414 Checkpoint Sys. V. Check Point
Software Techs Syndicate Sales v. Hampshire
Paper Corp.
Ronald D. Coleman GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY LLP New York, NY
What Do You What Do You Think . . .Think . . .
Is the damage to the First Amendment done by these decisions significant?
Will the Supreme Court ever speak on these issues?
Should the trademark bar urge Congressional action?
Or will the problem just "heal itself"?
QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?Where’s thebathroom?