Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Manufacturers vs. Exclusive Distributors: Who Owns the Trademarks?
The Third Circuit has adopted McCarthy's “ownership” test in determining whether a manufacturer or distributor owns a trademark in the absence of an express agreement between the parties. In Covertech Fabricating, Inc. v. TVM Building Products, Inc. et.al., No. 15-3893 (3d Cir. 2017), the court adopted McCarthy's test as the formal rule of the circuit, specifically replacing the “first use” test that typically decides trademark ownership disputes. The McCarthy test was first enumerated in Professor Thomas McCarthy's seminal treatise on trademark law. See, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2017). The Covertech case may prove to be a “win” for manufacturers as opposed to exclusive distributors when ownership of trademarks is not specified in their contract.
When manufacturers contract with their distributors, they handle trademarks in one of three ways: 1) they assert ownership of all trademarks on the products; 2) they assign the trademarks to the distributors; or 3) they fail to address the issue in the contract. When the contract is silent and a dispute between the parties ensues, the courts have to determine the trademark's ownership. In the Covertech case, the Third Circuit held that the traditional “first use” test is an “imperfect fit” for a manufacturer/distributor relationship. Instead, it favored the McCarthy “ownership” test.
The Covertech Case
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.