Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internet Usage Threatens Existence of Concurrent Use Registrations
In a rare concurrent use decision, Hubcap Heaven, LLC v. Hubcap Heaven, Inc., Concurrent Use No. 94001147 (Jan. 25, 2005) [not citable], the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) questioned the continued viability of concurrent use registrations in the face of the Internet's global reach. Concurrent usage is based on the premise that two owners of the same trademark for competing goods and services can coexist by carving out strict geographic territories for each user. The Internet, however, has no geographic boundaries.
Hubcap Heaven, LLC (“Applicant”) filed a concurrent use application in 1995 to register the service mark HUBCAP HEAVEN in International Class 42 for “wholesale and retail store, mail order, and online electronic catalog sales order services in the field of new, reconditioned and used automotive parts.” Applicant also included in its application a request to restrict its existing registration, issued in 1993, for the same mark for “automotive hubcaps, wheel covers and wheels” in International Class 12. Applicant sought nationwide rights, excepting limited areas of use within four states where Hubcap Heaven, Inc. (“Excepted User”) used the same service mark for the sale of automotive hubcaps. Applicant claimed a date of first use in commerce of Jan. 1979 for both the service mark application and existing registration.
Excepted User did not hold a federally registered trademark for its usage.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.