Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/25

Click to flip

25 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Patents must have (elements):
Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious
Trademark usage rule
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)
Patents must have (elements):
Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious
Origins of Trademark
Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept
Patents must have (elements):
Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious
Trademark usage rule
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)
Origins of Trademark
Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept
Trademark usage rule
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)
Move from tort to property concept of trademark
◊ 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
Move from tort to property concept of trademark
◊ 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
Origins of Trademark
Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept
The English common law view of trademark
There is no property right in a trademark
Move from tort to property concept of trademark
◊ 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
The English common law view of trademark
There is no property right in a trademark
Patents must have (elements):
Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious
Trademark usage rule
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)
The English common law view of trademark
There is no property right in a trademark
Origins of Trademark
Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept
Move from tort to property concept of trademark
◊ 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
The English common law view of trademark
There is no property right in a trademark
Patents must have (elements):
Novelty
Utility
Be non-obvious
Trademark usage rule
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)
Origins of Trademark
Trademark law is historically a tort concept and not a property concept
Move from tort to property concept of trademark
◊ 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
The English common law view of trademark
There is no property right in a trademark