3 ms·
This only covers trademark dilution which is one cause of action for trademark infringement, but not the only possible cause of action. Usually trademark diluti
by yincrash 10y ago
This only covers trademark dilution which is one cause of action for trademark infringement, but not the only possible cause of action. Usually trademark dilution is argued when the products are dissimilar. In this case, they are not dissimilar. And as such, this is the regular definition of infringement and is not covered by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3). It falls distinctly under § 1125(a).
PS - You linked to 15 U.S.C. § 1127, but quoted 1125.
PPS - An overview of the difference between dilution and infringement: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-dilution.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-diluti...
- jsprogrammer 10y agoUnfortunately HN didn't allow me to edit the comment. 1127 however contains the definition of many terms and I believe the same conclusion can be drawn from them (Trademark does not apply to noncommercial use). Here is 1125(a): (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, *uses in commerce any word*, ... As such, it does not apply in this situation. Further, 1125(c)(3)(C) is an exclusion across the entire 1125 subsection (and yes, for dilution, which is what has been argued here). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
- jsprogrammer 10y agoRE: PPS Your link says that infringement is a type of dilution. Therefore, no dilution means no infringement. Also note my other response to this comment: 1125(a) explicitly only includes commercial use. Again, the US government has only the authority to regulate interstate commerce (ie. trade [hence, trademark]).