Opinion ID: 1038552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Relevant Law of Trademark Protection

Text: A 'trademark' includes any word, name, symbol, or device . . . used by a person . . . to identify and distinguish his or her goods . . . from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods. 15 U.S.C. § 1127.8 A trademark 8 In this opinion, we use the terms trademark and mark to include both trademarks and service marks. Trademarks serve to identify and distinguish goods; service marks perform the same -8- protects the right to distinguish the holder's goods or services from other goods or services that might be confused with the holder's. See I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 1998) (noting that [a] primary purpose of . . . trademark protection is to protect that which identifies a product's source). Prevention of confusion is thus the touchstone of trademark protection. Where there is no likelihood of confusion by the alleged infringer there is no impairment of the interest that the trademark statute protects. Libman Co. v. Vining Indus., Inc., 69 F.3d 1360, 1361 (7th Cir. 1995). The right to use a mark in commerce may arise under either federal law or state common law.9 Gen. Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat, 364 F.3d 332, 335 (1st Cir. 2004). In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, trademark law was governed primarily by state common law. See Thrifty Rent-a-Car Sys., Inc. v. Thrift Cars, Inc., 831 F.2d 1177, 1180 (1st Cir. 1987). In an attempt to function for services. Bost. Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1, 12 n.8 (1st Cir. 2008); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1127. In the infringement context, the analysis is identical for both types of marks and the terms may thus be used interchangeably. See Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 772 n.3 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Star Fin. Servs., Inc. v. AASTAR Mortg. Corp., 89 F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 1996) (noting that the same test applies for infringement in both the trademark and service mark contexts). 9 Unlike the related fields of patent and copyright law, the Constitution does not grant Congress the express authority to establish laws governing trademarks. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. Thus to regulate trademarks, Congress must rely on its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. See Bos. Duck Tours, 531 F.3d at 11 n.7. -9- provide uniformity in an age where interstate commerce was rapidly becoming the norm, Congress passed the Lanham Act in 1946, which created a federal statutory framework to protect trademarks throughout the United States. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1129. Under the Act, users of trademarks may apply to register those marks with the USPTO. See id. § 1051. Such federal registration serves as constructive notice to the public of the registrant's ownership of the mark. In re Int'l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Peaches Entm't Corp. v. Entm't Repertoire Assocs., Inc., 62 F.3d 690, 692 (5th Cir. 1995) (The basic scheme that creates rights under the Lanham Act is a national registration system.). The Lanham Act did not supplant the state common law of trademarks, however. Cf. In re Spirits Int'l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that [t]he Lanham Act was designed to codify, not change, the common law in this area). Trademark users may still gain state law rights to use a trademark either through registration with a state government or through use in that state. In fact, Section 15 of the Lanham Act grants federally registered marks the right to exclusive use of the mark only insofar as they do not conflict with any pre-existing rights acquired under state law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1065.