Intellectual property has become a global concern in these last few decades due to the increased trade brought about by the internet. In an article posted at Focus, Field (2006) reported that in the United States alone, for example, studies in the past decade have estimated that over 50 percent of U.S. exports now depend on some form of intellectual property protection, compared to less than 10 percent 50 years ago. Even on a global scale, India was severely affected by intellectual property abuse for some decades causing the migration of its scholars, writers, academicians, and scientists to migrate to countries that can protect their intellectual property rights. Thus, when the Trade Mark Acts of 1999 was passed into a law in India, this gave a boost to their economy.
[...] The use of trademark has become a necessity with the influx of transactions done in the virtual world since it is hard to monitor new businesses that come up every minute. Moreover, with China joining the world market for promotion products, there will definitely be an upsurge of trademark registration since China produces billions of products. In a recent news report at Cafezine.com, it was reported that” a record 39,945 international trademark applications were received in 2007 by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Madrid system for the international registration of trademarks, representing a increase on figures for 2006”. [...]
[...] According to Wilcox (2006)”Dilution protection stems from a desire to maintain the value of famous trademarks”. However, there are some issues related to protecting trademarks like: Are all trademarks protected equally? Who determines the importance of certain trademarks? In an article at Michigan Law Review, Wilcox (2006) raised some sensitive observations on Federal Courts decision regarding trademarks. He argued that “Since the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) amended the Lanham Act in 1995, federal courts have adopted similar roles as arbiters of fame, determining which trademarks are sufficiently famous to receive federal protection against dilution”. [...]
[...] In this regard, a good lawyer named Bertagna (2007) made an incisive comment: The lack of a concrete definition of a ‘famous mark' in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1996 (FTDA 1996) led to confusion among courts, practitioners, and commentators. This was clarified by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA 2006), though the new clear definition removed the basis previously relied upon by many trade mark owners for protection of marks from dilution. The FTDA has strengthened indeed the Lanham Act, but it has ambiguities in its criteria of a “famous mark”. [...]
[...] In the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 was effective beginning January 1996. The purpose of the Act is protect famous marks from uses that dilute their distinctiveness, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion or competition”. Ladas and Perry (1996) noted that “Ordinarily, only injunctive relief is available under the new law. However, if the defendant willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark, the owner of that mark may also be entitled to other remedies available under the United States Trademark Act, including defendant's profits, damages, attorneys' fees, and destruction of the infringing goods”. [...]
[...] Thus, governments must closely guard their intellectual property if they want to dominate the world market. WORKS CITED Apple Inc., vs. NYC Inc. Opposition No. 91181984.Answer to Consolidated Notice of Opposition and Counterclaim for Cancellation. Basic Facts about Trademarks. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Bertagna , Blake R. “Fleeting Fame under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice .2007 2(12):821-824 Field, Thomas Jr. (January What is Intellectual Property?” Focus on Intellectual Property [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee