|
Ugg boots trademark disputes are the disputes between some footwear manufacturers, as to whether "ugg" is a protected trademark, or a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection. In Australia and New Zealand, where "Ugg" is a generic term for the style of footwear;〔Trade Marks Hearings 16 January 2006. Decision of a delegate of the registrar of trade marks with reasons. Pg 10〕 81 registered trademarks include the term "Ugg" in various logos and designs.〔(The battle of the UGG BOOT continues ) Hynes Lawyers February 11, 2011〕 By contrast, UGG is a registered trademark of the California-based company Deckers Outdoor Corporation, in over 130 countries worldwide, including the U.S., the European Union, and China.〔〔 Ugg boots (sometimes called ''uggs'') in Australia and New Zealand are a unisex style of sheepskin boot. In many other countries, however, UGG boots are a well-known brand〔(Website of Walker Morris UK solicitors firm, Leeds. ) "Bootiful - UGG recognised as a well known mark in Turkey" Legal Briefing from the Trade Marks and Designs Group, 3 October 2011.〕 of footwear owned by Deckers. The boots are made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole. The boots originated in Australia and New Zealand, initially as utilitarian footwear worn for warmth and comfort. UGG boots emerged as a fashion trend in the United States in the late 1990s and as a world-wide trend in the late 2000s.〔 ==Trademark law in the United States== The Lanham Act is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States〔 however, as it only applies to "commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress,"〔Quoting Lanham Act, 15 v.s.c. § 1114 (2000)〕 it does not address terms that are used in foreign countries.〔 For a court to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction for the Lanham Act, (1) the conduct of the defendant must have a "substantial" effect on U.S. commerce; (2) the defendant must be a U.S. citizen; and (3) there can be no conflict with foreign law. Failing to satisfy one of the factors "might well be determinative," and "the absence of () is certainly fatal." — Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1956).〕 The Doctrine of foreign equivalents guideline serves this purpose. Under the doctrine of "foreign equivalents," a foreign language term used in a foreign country, that is considered generic in that country, cannot be imported into the United States and used as a trademark. In applying the Doctrine, the courts consistently refer to two policy rationales.〔Sujata Chaudhri (Trademark Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents ) Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman pg 1〕 The first rationale, "the doctrine serves the interests of domestic competition":〔 "Because of the diversity of the population of the United States, coupled with temporary visitors, all of whom are part of the United States marketplace, commerce in the United States utilizes innumerable foreign languages. No merchant may obtain the exclusive right over a trademark registration if that exclusivity would prevent competitors from designating a product as what it is in the language their customers know best." — Otokoyama Co. Ltd. Vs Wine of Japan Import Inc..〔〔(Otokoyama Co. Ltd. Vs Wine of Japan Import Inc. 175 F. 3D. 266,271 (2nd Circuit 1999) )〕The second rationale, "the doctrine serves the interests of international comity":〔 "Because United States companies would be hamstrung in international trade if foreign countries granted trademark protection to generic English words, the United States reciprocates and refuses trademark protection to generic foreign words." — Enrique Bernat F., S.A. v. Guadalajara, Inc..〔〔(Enrique Bernat F., S.A. v. Guadalajara, Inc., 210 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2000) )〕However, the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure ("TMEP") states that the test for applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents is "whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would denote its English equivalent".〔(Guidance on when to apply the doctrine of foreign equivalents. Examination Guide 1-08 ) United States Patent and Trademark Office April 23, 2008 The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has, for the purposes of the guide, ruled that an "ordinary American purchaser" refers to the "significant portion of consumers" who speak both English and the relevant foreign language. In the case ''In re Joint Stock Co. "Baik ," 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310,'' 0.22% was accepted as a significant portion of consumers in the United States.〕〔TMEP 1207.01(b)(vi)〕〔 Thus the doctrine is generally interpreted by courts as not applying if the generic word is not a word from a foreign language, but one from an English-speaking foreign country.〔For foreign countries in which English is the primary language, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the generic status of an English-language term in that country was "irrelevant to the question () whether it should be accorded the same status in America" and carried no weight. Similarly, a California court has held that the "genericness" of an English-language term in an English-speaking foreign country "was not determinative of the alleged genericness of that term in the United States." — Rest Elizabeth J. (2006), Lost in Translation: pg. 1244 + 1246〕〔(Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 1207.01: 1207.01(b)(vi) Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents ) "The doctrine should be applied only when it is likely that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the foreign word into its English equivalent."〕〔 Court cases have noted that the generic status accorded to English-language words in foreign countries has no bearing on the registration of marks in the United States. The genericity argument was invoked for Ugg boots and was rejected by a U.S. district court which cited the following cases in support.〔 In ''Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co.'', the court rejected as irrelevant the generic usage of the phrase "L.A. beer" in Australia for Low-alcohol beer.〔''(Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co.'', 750 F.2d 631, 641-42 (8th Cir. 1984). )〕〔 The court ruled that "a term may be generic in one country and suggestive in another"〔 and that genericity in Australia was irrelevant.〔Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co. B92〕 In ''Carcione v. The Greengrocer, Inc.'', the court rejected as irrelevant the generic use of the term "Greengrocer" in most English speaking countries for a retailer of fruit. The court rejected the argument on the grounds that it is irrelevant how a term is used outside the United States:〔''Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co. C42〕 "The parties agree that the term is generic in Britain. Since we deal here with American trademark law, and thus American consumers, neither British usage nor the dictionary definition indicating such usage are determinative." 〔''Carcione v. The Greengrocer, Inc.'', 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1075 (E.D. Cal. 1979).〕〔 In another case, the court stated that while a term may be generic in another country, if "it is not so recognized in this country (U.S. )... the mark must still be regarded as arbitrary and fanciful in the United States." and thus remains eligible for registration as a trademark in the United States.〔''Seiko Sporting Goods USA, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten'', 545 F. Supp. 221, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)〕 As the doctrine is a guideline rather than a rule, it has been criticized with commentators noting that United States courts are often contradictory and inconsistent in their application of the doctrine, and that it provides little guidance to owners when choosing their marks or to courts when assessing protectability or likelihood of mark confusion.〔 It has been suggested by the International Trademark Association that the doctrine be abolished and replaced with one that applies equally to all foreign words, regardless of whether they are from a foreign language or an English language, and that they take into account that country's trademark laws. Under the proposed changes, "Terms that are generic are never protectible as trademarks and are never registerable".〔Rest Elizabeth J. (2006), Lost in Translation: pg. 1221〕〔Serge Krimnus, (The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents at Death's Door ), 12 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 159 (2010)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ugg boots trademark dispute」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|