Location of Repository

Revisiting the philosophical foundations of trademarks in the US and UK in the light of the Economic-Social Planning Theory

By Moh'd Amin Naser

Abstract

This thesis challenges the philosophical foundations of current trademark\ud systems. It takes the trademark legislations of the United States and the United Kingdom\ud as case studies for the argument of this thesis. In proving the hypothesis –that the\ud theoretical foundations of trademark systems should be revisited– the thesis argues that\ud the process of trademark creation should be transformed to the more practical and\ud realistic proposition of “co-authorship” of trademarks by both the public and trademark\ud owners.\ud Accordingly, the thesis develops the “Economic-Social Planning justification”, which\ud departs from the economic argument that trademarks reduce consumer search costs, and\ud then proposes that trademarks should be formulated in a manner which helps foster a just\ud and attractive culture. Trademarks are thus seen in this thesis as source and origin\ud identifiers, rather than quality identifiers. This thesis advances a new argument insofar as\ud it develops this origin function of trademarks into a modern concept, whereby this is\ud considered as the only primary function of trademarks, and forms the rational basis for\ud trademark protection. This opens the way for other secondary functions such as the\ud quality, advertising and informative functions.\ud More importantly, this thesis focuses on the often ignored role of the public and their\ud rights in trademarks. As such, the most equitable approach, on the basis of the proposed\ud justification, lies in the adoption of the confusion rationale for trademarks protection, not\ud the dilution individualistic and monopolistic rationale. The two jurisdictions of this thesis\ud prove not only that the problem lies in the adoption of dilution, but also in the wide\ud application of the confusion rationale. They also prove adverse effects over the rights of\ud the public in terms of using trademarks in cultural and expressive contexts (for example\ud in the form of trademark parody), thereby threatening the principles of freedom of\ud expression as a human fundamental right

Publisher: University of Leicester
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/9940

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2005). 1170. This is distinct from the case of the US after the introduction of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of
  2. (1997). A ‘A Lockean Theory of Intellectual property’
  3. (2005). A ‘Distinctive Character Acquired Through Use: Establishing the Facts’
  4. (2004). A ‘Likelihood of Confusion’
  5. (2003). A ‘The Burden of Actual Dilution: In the Wake of Moseley v. Victoria Secret Catalogue’
  6. (1994). A ‘Trademarks Unplugged’
  7. (1992). A ‘Well-Known Marks, Highly Renown Marks and Marks Having a (High) Reputation – What’s it All about?’
  8. (2005). A and Parchomovsky G ‘A Theory of Property’
  9. (1975). A Concurrent Use Registration as a Reflection of Established Territorial Rights; Fact or Fiction?’
  10. (2006). A Defence of the New Federal Trademark Antidilution Law’
  11. (2003). A Dilution Delusion: The Unjustifiable Protection of Similar
  12. (1993). A Federal Dilution Statute: Is it Time?’
  13. (1994). A Loaded Question: On Section 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act
  14. (2007). A New Theory of Trademarks’
  15. (1996). A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (1st edn Dartmouth
  16. (2007). A Skeptical view of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act’
  17. (2001). Against Intellectual Property’
  18. (2002). American Family Life Insurance Co v Timothy Hagan 266 F.Supp.2d 682
  19. (1989). An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law’
  20. (1989). An Outline of a Theory Justifying Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights’
  21. (2003). Ancient and Islamic Sources of Intellectual Property Protection in the Middle East: A Focus on Trademarks’
  22. (1990). and Consumer Confusion: A Workable Lanham Act Infringement Standard’
  23. (2005). and others Kerly’s Law
  24. (1979). and Teply LL ‘Trademarked Generic Words’
  25. (1992). Antidilution Statutes and the First Amendment’
  26. (1990). Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects’
  27. (1998). Are the State Antidilution Laws Compatible with the National Protection of Trademarks?’
  28. (1987). Arts & Athletics Inc v
  29. (1995). As Satiric As They Wanna Be: Parody Lawsuits Under Copyright, Trademark, Dilution and Publicity Laws’
  30. (2002). Assessing Trademark Significance: Genericness, Secondary Meaning and Surveys’
  31. (1989). Athletic Association v Mark Sullivan
  32. (1993). Baseball Properties Inc v Sed Non Olet Denarius
  33. (1996). BASF Plc v CEP (U.K.) Plc
  34. (1975). Basic Features of Anglo-American, French and German Trademark Law’
  35. (2006). Basic Trademark SA’s Application
  36. (1997). Baywatch Production Co Inc v The Home Video Channel
  37. (2001). Cable News Network L.P. v CNNews.com 177 F.Supp.2d 506
  38. (2000). Catalogue Inc v Victor Moseley
  39. (2001). Catalogue Inc v Victor Moseley 259 F.3d 464
  40. (2008). Catalogues Inc v Victor Moseley 558 F.Supp.2d 734
  41. (1993). Citing Nike Inc v
  42. (1953). Clothes Inc v Hyde Park Fashions Inc 204 F.2d 223
  43. (1956). Co Inc v
  44. (1993). Co Inc v The Gillette Co 984 F.2d 567
  45. Co v
  46. (1978). Co v Carling O’Keefe
  47. (1978). Co v Scott’s Liquid Gold
  48. (1994). Committee on Trade Marks Bill HL
  49. (1972). Concurrent Use and Registration of Trademarks’
  50. (2001). Conflicting Marks: Embracing the Consequences of the European Community and its Unitary Trademark Regime’
  51. (1997). Confused About the Federal Trademark Dilution?’
  52. (2007). Considering the Who, What, When, Where and How of Measuring Dilution’
  53. Contesting the Incontestable: Reforming Trademark’s Descriptive Mark Protection Scheme’ (2005-2006) 41 Gonzaga L Rev
  54. (1883). Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 20
  55. (2000). Copyright in Trade Marks? On Understanding Trade Mark Dilution’
  56. (1999). Corgi Trade Mark Application
  57. (1963). Corp v
  58. (1985). Corp v Lowery Wellheads
  59. (1979). Cowboys Cheerleaders Inc v Pussycat Cinema 604 F.2d
  60. Cowboys Cheerleaders v.
  61. (1964). De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres (Vol 2 Oceana Publications New York and Wildy & Sons Ltd London FW Kelsey Translation Reprinted
  62. (2001). Dilution
  63. (1996). Dilution and Passing off: Cause for Concern’
  64. (2004). Dilution and Speech: First Amendment Limitations on the Trademark Estate: An Update’
  65. (2008). Dilution by Tarnishment: The New Cause of Action’
  66. (2001). Dilution Disguised: Has the Concept of Dilution Made its Way into the Laws of Europe’
  67. (2004). Dilution of a Trademark: European and United States Law Compared’
  68. (1993). Dilution or Delusion: The Rational Limits of Trademark Protection’
  69. (2000). Dilution-by-Blurring: A Theory Caught in the Shadow of Trademark Infringement’
  70. (1988). Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
  71. (1997). Do Marks with a Reputation Merit Special Protection’
  72. (2007). Domain Names, Trademarks and the First Amendment: Searching for Meaningful Boundaries’
  73. (1928). Electric Corp v Robertson Comr of Patents 26 F.2d 972 (2d Cir.
  74. (2005). Electrocoin Automatics Ltd v Coinworld Ltd
  75. (1998). Enterprises Inc v
  76. (2005). Establishing Geographic Rights in Trademarks Based on Internet Use’
  77. (2002). European Trade Mark Law and the Enclosure of the Commons’
  78. (1972). Excerpts from the Lanham Act and the Social Function of Trade-Marks’
  79. (1989). Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation’
  80. (1998). Famous and Well-Known Trade Marks – “Usurping a Corner of the Giant’s Robe” ’
  81. (1998). Famous Trademarks: Ordinary Inquiry by the Courts of Marks Entitled to an Extraordinary Remedy’
  82. (1990). Farberware Inc v Mr.
  83. (2001). Fifty Years of the Lanham Act: The Decline and Demise of Monopoly Phobia’
  84. (1992). Finding Likelihood of Confusion with Actual Confusion: A Critical Analysis of the Federal Courts’ Approach’
  85. (1936). Fog and Fiction in Trade-Mark protection’
  86. (1990). Foods Inc v
  87. (1992). Foreword:
  88. (2005). Freedom of Speech (2nd edn Oxford
  89. (1985). Freedom Savings and Loan Association v Vernon Waw Jr. d/b/a Freedom Realty 757 F.2d 1176
  90. (2007). French Connection Ltd’s Trade Mark Application
  91. (2007). Furstenberg Studio v Catherine Snyder and Richard Snyder
  92. (1980). Gas & Elec. Corp v Public Service
  93. (1983). Giant Food Inc v Nation’s Foodservice Inc 710 F.2d 1565
  94. (2005). Going Down in History: Does History Have Anything to Offer Today’s Intellectual Property Lawyer’
  95. (2001). Griffiths A ‘The Impact of the Global Appreciation Approach on the Boundaries of Trade Mark Protection’
  96. (1998). Group Rights to Cultural Survival: Intellectual Property Rights in Native American Cultural Symbols’
  97. (1992). Harmonisation of Trade Mark Law in Europe: The First Trade Mark Harmonisation’
  98. (2008). Holyoak & Torremans Intellectual Property Law (5th edn Oxford
  99. (1996). How the World Dreams of Itself to be American: Reflections on the Relationship Between the Expanding Scope of Trademark Protection and Free Speech Norms’
  100. (2007). How to Prevent Your Mark Becoming Generic’
  101. (1987). Inc v
  102. (2000). Inc v 551
  103. (2007). Inc v CPM
  104. (1997). Inc v J.P.
  105. (1971). Inc v The Norwich Pharmacal Co 437 F.2d 566
  106. (1921). Inc v United Drug Co 272 F.
  107. (2000). Infringement under Section 10(2) and 10(3) of the 1994 Trade Marks Act in Perspective’
  108. Initial Interest Confusion: What Ever Happened to Traditional Likelihood of Confusion Analysis?’ (2002-2003) 12 The Federal Circuit Bar
  109. (1998). Intellectual Property and the Problem of Parody’
  110. (2004). Intellectual Property Law (2nd edn Oxford
  111. (2004). Intellectual Property Omnipresent, Distracting, Irrelevant? (1st edn Oxford
  112. (2003). Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Social Progress: The Case Against Incentive Based Arguments’
  113. (1988). Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach’
  114. (2000). Intellectual Property: General Theories’
  115. (2007). Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (6th edn Sweet & Maxwell London
  116. (1994). International texts: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
  117. (1993). Inventors, and Trademark Owners:
  118. (2006). Is Trademark Dilution Law Diluting Rights? A Survey of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of
  119. (1981). Joint Registration of Trademarks and the Economic Value of a Trademark System’
  120. (2008). Judging Dilution in the United States and Japan’
  121. (1995). Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of
  122. (1989). Justifying Intellectual Property’
  123. (1963). King-Seeley Thermos Co v Aladdin Industries Inc 321 F.2d 577
  124. (2002). Labour and Limiting the Author’s Right: A Warning Against a Lockean Approach to Copyright Law’
  125. (2002). Licensing Inc v
  126. (2007). Life After Moseley: The Trademark Dilution Revision Act’
  127. Likelihood of Confusion Under the Lanham Act: A Question of Fact,
  128. (1987). Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1st edn Allen & Unwin London
  129. (2001). Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property’
  130. (1960). Ltd v The Chester Laurie
  131. (2000). Madness: How Brent Musburger and the Miracle Bra May Have Led to a More Equitable and Efficient Understanding of the Reverse Confusion Doctrine in Trademark Law’
  132. (1998). McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd
  133. (1994). Michaels A ‘Confusion in and about
  134. (1916). Milling Co v
  135. (1917). Mills Co v Rigney
  136. (2003). Mossoff A ‘What is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together’
  137. (2004). Mutant Copyrights and Backdoor Patents: The Problem of Overlapping Intellectual Property Protection’
  138. (1987). Mutual of Omaha Ins.
  139. (2006). New and Improved: The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of
  140. (2007). No Reason to Live: Dilution Laws as Unconstitutional Restrictions on Commercial Speech’
  141. (1990). Objects of Property and Subjects of Politics: Intellectual Property Laws and Democratic Dialogue’
  142. (1992). On Owning Information: Intellectual Property and the Restitutionary Impulse’
  143. (1984). On the Nature of Rights’
  144. (2006). On the Value of Copyright Theory’
  145. (1990). Owning What Doesn’t Exist’
  146. (1997). Parody: A Fatal Attraction? Part 2: Trade Mark Parodies’
  147. (1952). Philosophy of Right (1st edn Oxford
  148. (2001). Planetary Motion Inc v
  149. (1996). Plc v James Robertson
  150. (1999). Plc v One In A Million Ltd
  151. (1961). Polaroid Corp v Polarad Electronics Corp 287 F.2d 492
  152. (2005). Policing the Border between Trademarks and Free Speech: Protecting Unauthorized Trademark Use in Expressive Works’
  153. (1964). Private Property in John Locke’s State of Nature’
  154. (1997). Property and Contract on the Internet’
  155. (1981). Property and Personhood’
  156. (1931). Property- According to Locke’
  157. (1999). Property, and Progressive Taxes’
  158. (2005). Protection of Famous Trademarks Against Use for Unrelated Goods and Services: A Comparative Analysis of the Law in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada and Recommendations for the Canadian Law Reform’
  159. (2004). Proving a Trademark has been Diluted: Theories or Facts?’
  160. (2005). Rahmatian A ‘Copyright and Commodification’
  161. (1999). Rahmatian A ‘Infringement of Trade Marks in the United Kingdom and in
  162. (2004). Rahmatian A ‘Trade Mark Infringement as a Criminal Offence’
  163. (2008). Rahmatian A ‘Trade Marks and Human Rights’
  164. (2004). Raising the Bar Too High: Moseley V. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. and Relief under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act’
  165. (2008). Re-examining the Functions of Trademark Law’
  166. Recent Developments of Dilution in the US and the UK’ [2009] European Intellectual Property Rev (forthcoming, copy with author).
  167. (1999). Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks (adopted
  168. (2000). Remedies Trade
  169. (2007). Rethinking the Foundations of Trademarks’
  170. (1999). Ringling Bros.-Barnum v Utah Division of Travel Development 170 F.3d 449
  171. (1996). Seuss Enterprises L.P. v Penguin Books
  172. (2000). Sheimer (M.) Sdn Bhd’s Trade Mark Application
  173. (1998). Should We Use Guns and Missiles to Protect Famous Trademarks in Europe?’
  174. (2006). Sixty Years of the Lanham Act: The Decline and Demise of Monopoly Phobia’
  175. (1995). Some Frequently Asked Questions about the 1994 UK Trade Marks Act’
  176. (1995). Some Thoughts on the Dynamics of Federal Trademark Legislation and the Trademark Dilution Act of
  177. (1990). Source Theory and Guarantee Theory in Anglo-American Trade Mark Policy: A Critical Legal Study’
  178. State of the State: Is There a Future for State Dilution Laws?’ (2007-2008) 24
  179. Statutory Instrument 2004/946 Reg 7. -EC statutes and texts: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (ECHR).
  180. (1995). Steakhouse & Saloon Inc v
  181. (1980). Stop the Olympic Prison v
  182. (1939). Stores v
  183. (2006). Table of cases -USA cases: 24 Hour Fitness
  184. Taking Unfair Advantage or Diluting a Famous Mark – A
  185. (1993). Tavern Co Inc v
  186. (1996). The
  187. (1995). The “Unnatural” Expansion of Trademark Rights: Is a Federal Dilution Statute Necessary?’
  188. (1951). The Ancient Lineage of Trade-Marks’
  189. (2005). The Birth of the Authornym: Authorship, Pseudonymity, and Trademark Law’
  190. (2007). The Common Law and the Quest for the IP Effect’
  191. (1998). The Communicative Aspects of Trade Marks: A Legal, Functional and Economic Analysis (PhD Thesis
  192. (2000). The Congressional Expansion of American Trademark Law: A Civil Law System in the Making’
  193. The Continuing Debacle of U.S. Antidilution Law: Evidence from the First Year of Trademark Dilution Revision Act Case Law’ (2007-2008) 24
  194. (2004). The Creative Commons’
  195. (1998). The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties (1st edn Duke
  196. (2005). The Culture of Trade Marks: An Alternative Cultural Theory Perspective’
  197. (1977). The Death of the Author’ in Roland Barthes, Image, Music, Text, Essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath (Fontana Press London
  198. (1995). The Dilution Doctrine: Towards a Reconciliation With the Lanham Act’
  199. (2008). The Dilution of Culture and the Law of Trademarks’
  200. (1982). The Economic Function of Trade Marks: An Analysis with Special Reference to Developing Countries’
  201. (1996). The Economic Importance of Trade Marks in the UK (1973-1992) A Preliminary Investigation’
  202. (1988). The Economics of Trademark Law’
  203. (1988). The Economics of Trademarks’
  204. (2008). The Fame Standard for Trademark Dilution in the United States and European Union Compared’
  205. (1998). The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 and the Evolution of the Dilution Doctrine – Is it Truly a Rational Basis for the Protection of Trademarks?’
  206. (1175). The Federal Trademark Dilution Act: “Actual Harm” or
  207. (2003). The FTDA after Moseley v. V Secret’
  208. The Future of the Concurrent Use of Trademarks Doctrine
  209. (1983). The Historical Development of Trademarks’
  210. (2007). The Idea of Authorship
  211. (2009). The Lanham Act and the Trademark Monopoly Phobia’
  212. (1996). The Lanham Act- An Analysis’
  213. (1998). The Likelihood of Association of Trade Marks: An Assessment in the Light of the Recent Case Law of the Court of Justice’
  214. (1995). The Limits of Lockean Rights
  215. (1970). The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’
  216. (1995). The Maturing Trademark Doctrine of Post-Sales Confusion’
  217. (1979). The New West Corp v
  218. (1839). The Normative Foundations of Trademark Law’ (2006-2007) 82 Notre Dame L Rev
  219. (1988). The Philosophy of Intellectual Property’
  220. (1956). The Problem of Trademark Dilution and the Antidilution Statutes’
  221. (2001). The Psychological Foundations of Trademark Law: Secondary Meaning, Genericism, Fame, Confusion and Dilution’
  222. (1990). The Public Domain’
  223. (1950). The Public Interest
  224. (1980). The Public Interest and the Trademark System’
  225. (1989). The Quality Guarantee Function of Trade Marks: An Economic Viewpoint’
  226. (1926). The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection’ (Reprinted
  227. (2006). The Rational Limits of Trademark Law’
  228. (1996). The Return to Wagamama’
  229. (1988). The Right to Private Property (1st edn Clarendon Press
  230. (2006). The Role of State Trademark Dilution Statutes in the Light of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of
  231. (1991). The Scope of Confusion Actionable under Federal Trademark Law: Who Must be Confused and When?’
  232. (2006). The Trademark Dilution Revision Act – A Consumer Perspective’
  233. (2007). The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006: Balanced Protection for Famous Brands’
  234. (2006). The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006: Prospective Changes to Dilution Definition, Claim Analyses, and Standard of Harm’
  235. (1982). The Trademark Right: Consumer Protection or Monopoly?’
  236. (1989). The Trouble with Trademark’
  237. The True Value of Trademarks: Influencing who we are and who we Want to be’ (2001-2002) 12
  238. (1996). The Wagamama Decision: Back to the Dark Ages of Trade Mark Law’
  239. (2001). Theories of Intellectual Property’
  240. (1996). Think Before you Waga Finger’
  241. (2008). Time to Re-think the Ever Expanding Concept of Trade Marks? Recalibrating Singapore’s Trade Mark Law after the Controversial US-Singapore FTA’
  242. (2007). To Live in in-“Fame”-Y: Reconceiving Scandalous Marks as Analogous to Famous Marks’
  243. (2003). To Protect or Serve?
  244. (2006). Tool of the Trademark: Brand Criticism and Free Speech Problems with the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of
  245. (1990). Toward a Reformulation of the Test for Determining Trademark Infringement’
  246. Trade Mark Rights– A Justification Based
  247. (2006). Trade Marks
  248. (2007). Trade Marks and Freedom of Expression – The Proportionality of Criticism’
  249. (1999). Trade Marks and the Promotion of Trade’
  250. (1951). Trade-Marks and the Monopoly Phobia’
  251. (1996). Trademark Dilution (1st edn
  252. (2002). Trademark Dilution Federal, State,
  253. (2005). Trademark Dilution Revision Act
  254. Trademark Dilution: of Fame, Blurring, and Sealing Wax, with a
  255. (2003). Trademark Dilution: Setting the Dilution Standard under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act’
  256. Trademark Infringement
  257. (1949). Trademark Infringement and Confusion of Source: Need for Supreme Court Action’
  258. (1973). Trademark Licensing and the Antitrust Law’
  259. (2001). Trademark Parody: A Conflict between Constitutional and Intellectual Property Interests’
  260. (1986). Trademark Parody: A Fair Use and First Amendment Analysis’
  261. (1205). Trademarks – Likelihood of Confusion and the Public Interest’ (1973-1974) 20 Wayne L Rev
  262. (2006). Trademarks and Cyberspace’
  263. (2009). Trademarks and Freedom of Expression’
  264. (1989). Trademarks and Genericness: Loss of a Mark to the Public Domain Through its Transformation into a Generic Term’
  265. (1984). Trademarks and Unfair Competition (2nd edn The Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co.
  266. (1979). Trademarks and Unfair Competition: A Critical History of Legal Thought’
  267. (1982). Trademarks as Speech: Constitutional Implications of the Emerging Rationales for the Protection of Trade Symbols’
  268. (1992). Two Pesos Inc v Taco Cabana
  269. Two Treatises of Government (n82) 16. ibid. See also,
  270. (1964). Two Treatises of Government, a Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus by Peter Laslett (1st edn Cambridge
  271. (1995). UK Trade Mark Law: Are you Confused’
  272. (1946). Unfair Competition without Competition?’
  273. (2005). Use and Non-Use in Trade Mark Law’
  274. (2003). v
  275. (1946). v Rockmont Envelope Co 155 F.2d 568, 69 U.S.P.Q.
  276. (2007). Vuitton Malletier v Haute Diggity Dog 507 F.3d 252
  277. (1985). What is Private Property?’
  278. What’s the Secret? – Proving Actual Harm
  279. (1988). When Justice Replaces Affection: The Need for Rights’
  280. (1999). Who Authors Trademarks?’
  281. (2006). Why we are Confused about the Trademark Dilution Law’

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.