At 01:07 PM 3/1/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>I don't know about US case law, but under English law trade marks most
>certainly are property. They are part of that great division of property,
>Intellectual Property. Even in the US they (like domain names) seem to
>have the key attributes of property: they can be bought, sold and licensed.
Again, whatever rubrics are invented for academic purposes have nothing to
do with the underlying law.
>
>It is true of course that one of the justifications for various parts of
>trade mark law is that allowing the owner of a trade mark to enforce it
>protects consumers from fraud and deception. Looked at another way, the
>trade mark owner is generally allowed to protect the goodwill he has in the
>mark against being "ripped off". There is a large and complex body of
>legislation and case law on this in most jurisdictions of the world, and
>the answers although similar (due to the great harmonisation efforts of
>WIPO and others) do differ, particularly between common law and civil law
>jurisdictions.
>
>"A trademark, even a registered one, is not a property right, like a
copyright or patent, but merely an identifier of source. Others can
use the same mark to identify their product, provided there is no
likelihood of confusion." Door Systems Inc. v. Pro-Line Door
Systems, Inc., 83 F3d 169, 173, 38 USPQ2d 1771, 1775 (7th Cir.
1996).
What can I say? This particular cite happens to be 7th Circ., but similar
ones abound.
Bill Lovell
>
