Does a generic term in one country render trademark protection unavailable in another? Not in the U.S.!
Under U.S. law, generic trademarks are common terms used to refer to products or services. What you’re using right now to read this blog post – a computer, a phone – no one can claim rights to these terms. Generic trademarks are not qualified for protection and cannot be registered. Conversely, even the strongest of trademarks can, over time, become generic and lose their registration. Products like aspirin, linoleum, and yo-yo were once registered as federal trademarks, but have subsequently been canceled because they grew to represent an entire class of products. A more modern example is “flip phone.” Motorola registered the mark in 1998 when its StarTAC 85 cell phone was the newest technology. As imitators developed the product, the mark evolved into a generic term for all “flip phones” – cell phones in which the display in the top half folds down to cover the keypad in bottom half. The mark was canceled in 2005.
On a global level, the lines are blurred. What if a term is generic in one country, but not another?
The Northern District of Illinois recently debated this in Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Australian Leather Pty. Ltd. The court found that not only can an Australian company not assert the genericity of a trademark in the US based on its usage in Australia, it may also be costly. Between 2014 and 2016, Australian Leather was found to have sold twelve pairs of sheepskin lined boots to U.S. consumers via its website. On May 10, 2019, Deckers Outdoor Corp. was awarded $450,000 in damages in its successful case against Australian Leather.
In 1979, the plaintiff acquired UGG Holdings, a company founded by Australian surfer Brian Smith in California. UGG Holdings imported sheepskin boots from Australia, where the term “ugg” is generic. Deckers registered the UGG trademark in 1999 in the U.S. and began enforcing the mark all over the world.
In 2016, Deckers sued Australian Leather for trademark infringement. Australian Leather makes about 50,000 pairs of sheepskin boots annually; Deckers sought millions in punitive damages, as well as destruction of the company’s boot stock. Deckers presented customer surveys to support its position that American consumers understand “UGG” as a brand name, rather than a type of shoe.
The court held that even with the assumption that the term “ugg” is generic in Australia, no reasonably jury could find the term generic in the United States, rendering the legal status of the term in Australia irrelevant. Australian Leather did not produce any evidence showing that consumers in the United States who knew of the Australian usage of the term would be misled into thinking that there was only one brand of sheepskin boots available.
The jury awarded the plaintiff $450,000 in statutory damages, but it is yet to be determined whether Australian Leather will be on the hook for Deckers’ legal bills, which would cost millions – ugg!
- Trouble Ahead for Global Data Exchanges: The Court of Justice of the EU Strikes Down “Privacy Shield”
- U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Booking.com in Critical Trademark Case
- Application of "Invention Concept" after New China Patent Examination Guidelines
- Remdesivir Versus Designated Survivor: Life Imitating Art
- Supreme Court Finds ‘Willfulness’ Not Required To Obtain A Profits Award From An Infringer
- Approaches to Cost Containment in the Time of Coronavirus
- Pharma Formulations – Patentability and Obviousness
- Federal Circuit Lowers Restrictions on Obtaining Registration of Color Marks
- CBDelayed: The FDA’s Recently Released Report on CBD
- Intellectual Property Awareness for Early Stage Companies
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017