Property Chapter 4 - Intellectual Property

Front 1

Patents must have (elements):

Back 1

Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious

Front 2

Trademark usage rule

Back 2

Within the US you may have a trademark in two different markets, used by two companies that are identical (Hanover Star Milling Company v. Metcalf)

Front 3

Patents must have (elements):

Back 3

Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious

Front 4

Origins of Trademark

Back 4

Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept

Front 5

Patents must have (elements):

Back 5

Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious

Front 6

Trademark usage rule

Back 6

Within the US you may have a trademark in two different markets, used by two companies that are identical (Hanover Star Milling Company v. Metcalf)

Front 7

Origins of Trademark

Back 7

Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept

Front 8

Trademark usage rule

Back 8

Within the US you may have a trademark in two different markets, used by two companies that are identical (Hanover Star Milling Company v. Metcalf)

Front 9

Move from tort to property concept of trademark

Back 9

◊ You may not own the trademark itself, but you likely do own the goodwill you have built up
◊ Goodwill affects the profits of a business (high goodwill translates into profits => Coke, Ipod, etc)
◊ If a business loses goodwill because the public buys knockoffs, and the ill will it attributed to the original product, there will likely be lost profits
◊ This is a move away from a pure tort theory of trademark toward a property theory => represented by allowing the original mfct to sue the new mfct and saying that it is because of the goodwill and loss of sales and profits

Front 10

Move from tort to property concept of trademark

Back 10

◊ You may not own the trademark itself, but you likely do own the goodwill you have built up
◊ Goodwill affects the profits of a business (high goodwill translates into profits => Coke, Ipod, etc)
◊ If a business loses goodwill because the public buys knockoffs, and the ill will it attributed to the original product, there will likely be lost profits
◊ This is a move away from a pure tort theory of trademark toward a property theory => represented by allowing the original mfct to sue the new mfct and saying that it is because of the goodwill and loss of sales and profits

Front 11

Origins of Trademark

Back 11

Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept

Front 12

The English common law view of trademark

Back 12

There is no property right in a trademark

Front 13

Move from tort to property concept of trademark

Back 13

◊ You may not own the trademark itself, but you likely do own the goodwill you have built up
◊ Goodwill affects the profits of a business (high goodwill translates into profits => Coke, Ipod, etc)
◊ If a business loses goodwill because the public buys knockoffs, and the ill will it attributed to the original product, there will likely be lost profits
◊ This is a move away from a pure tort theory of trademark toward a property theory => represented by allowing the original mfct to sue the new mfct and saying that it is because of the goodwill and loss of sales and profits

Front 14

The English common law view of trademark

Back 14

There is no property right in a trademark

Front 15

Patents must have (elements):

Back 15

Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious

Front 16

Trademark usage rule

Back 16

Within the US you may have a trademark in two different markets, used by two companies that are identical (Hanover Star Milling Company v. Metcalf)

Front 17

The English common law view of trademark

Back 17

There is no property right in a trademark

Front 18

Origins of Trademark

Back 18

Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept

Front 19

Move from tort to property concept of trademark

Back 19

◊ You may not own the trademark itself, but you likely do own the goodwill you have built up
◊ Goodwill affects the profits of a business (high goodwill translates into profits => Coke, Ipod, etc)
◊ If a business loses goodwill because the public buys knockoffs, and the ill will it attributed to the original product, there will likely be lost profits
◊ This is a move away from a pure tort theory of trademark toward a property theory => represented by allowing the original mfct to sue the new mfct and saying that it is because of the goodwill and loss of sales and profits

Front 20

The English common law view of trademark

Back 20

There is no property right in a trademark

Front 21

Patents must have (elements):

Back 21

Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious

Front 22

Trademark usage rule

Back 22

Within the US you may have a trademark in two different markets, used by two companies that are identical (Hanover Star Milling Company v. Metcalf)

Front 23

Origins of Trademark

Back 23

Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept

Front 24

Move from tort to property concept of trademark

Back 24

◊ You may not own the trademark itself, but you likely do own the goodwill you have built up
◊ Goodwill affects the profits of a business (high goodwill translates into profits => Coke, Ipod, etc)
◊ If a business loses goodwill because the public buys knockoffs, and the ill will it attributed to the original product, there will likely be lost profits
◊ This is a move away from a pure tort theory of trademark toward a property theory => represented by allowing the original mfct to sue the new mfct and saying that it is because of the goodwill and loss of sales and profits

Front 25

The English common law view of trademark

Back 25

There is no property right in a trademark