required use as condition for registration section 124.2. the

8/14/2019 Required Use as Condition for Registration SECTION 124.2. The

1/87

Required Use As Condition For RegistrationSECTION 124.2. The applicant or the registrant

shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark with

evidence to that effect, as prescribed by theRegulations within three (3) years from the filing

date of the application. Otherwise, the application

shall be refused or the mark shall be removed from

the Register by the Director.


2/87

Declaration must specify the goods and outlets

where they are sold

Adoption alone of a trademark would not vest

exclusive right upon the proprietor

Trademark is a creation of use


3/87

Required Use As Condition For Maintenance

Section 145. * * * the registrant shall file a

declaration of actual use and evidence to that effect,

or shall show valid reasons based on the existence of

obstacles to such use, as prescribed by the

regulations, within one (1) year from the fifth

anniversary of the date of registration of the mark.

Otherwise, the mark shall be removed from theRegister by the Office.


4/87

Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated vs. Shoemart,

Incorporated and North Edsa Marketing,

Incorporated, G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003

Issue: TM infringement, Class of Goods

Facts:

1. P&D manufactures advertising display units orlight boxes, which utilize specially printed posters

sandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminated

with back lights.

2. It secured a TM registration for "Poster Ads"

which petitioner's president said was a contraction

of "poster advertising."


5/87

3. But the goods covered by the registration were

were "stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes,

calling cards and newsletters," which P&D did notactually manufacture.

The SC held:

1. Under ruling in Faberge Inc. vs. Intermediate

Appellate Court, involving Section 20 of the old

Trademark Law, "the certificate of registration

issued by the Director of Patents can confer (upon

petitioner) the exclusive right to use its own

symbol only to those goods specified in the

certificate, subject to any conditions and


6/87

limitations specified in the certificate . . . . One who

has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does

not prevent the adoption and use of the same

trademark by others for products which are of a

different description." Faberge, Inc. was correct and

was in fact recently reiterated in Canon Kabushiki

Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals.2. Assuming arguendo that "Poster Ads" could validly

qualify as a trademark, the failure of P & D to secure

a trademark registration for light boxes meant that

there could not have been any trademarkinfringement since registration was an essential

element thereof.

3. Note Sec. 147, identical or similar


7/87

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals and

NSR Rubber Corporation, G.R. No. 120900. July 20,

2000Issue: Related Goods Doctrine

Facts:

1. NSR Rubber Corporation (private respondent)

filed an application with the BPTTT for registration

of the mark CANON for sandals.

2. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha opposed the application.3. Canons certificates of registration for the mark.

CANON in the Philippines and other countries

covering goods in class 2 (paints, chemical products,

toner, and dye stuff).


8/87

4. BPTT and CA dismissed the opposition.

5. Before the SC, Canon claims that its use of

CANON on paints, chemical products, toner, and

dye stuff, which are used as shoe polisher andpolishing agents justified the rejection of NSRs

application for CANON for sandals.


9/87

The SC held:

1. Ordinarily, a trademark is a a property right

that is protected by law.2. But when a trademark is used by another on

product in which the opposer does not deal, the

use of the same trademark on the latter's product

cannot be validly objected to.3. Related Goods Doctrine: There is a world of

difference between the paints, chemical products,

toner, and dyestuff of petitioner and the sandals

of private respondent.

4. Natural Expansion of Business Doctrine:


10/87

It would be taxing one's credibility to aver at this

point that the production of sandals could be

considered as a possible "natural or normalexpansion" of its business operation".

5. In Faberge, Incorporated vs. Intermediate

Appellate Court, the Director of patents allowed the

junior user to use the trademark of the senior useron the ground that the briefs manufactured by the

junior user, the product for which the trademark

BRUTE was sought to be registered, was unrelated

and non-competing with the products of the senior

user consisting of after shave lotion, shaving cream,

deodorant, talcum powder, and toilet soap.


11/87

6. Paris Convention Claim: "A tradename shall be

protected in all the countries of the Union without

the obligation of filing or registration, whether ornot it forms part of a trademark.

7. Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate

Court : "Regarding the applicability of Article 8

of the Paris Convention, this Office believes that

there is no automatic protection afforded an entity

whose tradename is alleged to have been infringed

through the use of that name as a trademark by a

local entity.


12/87

Excused Non-Uses

SECTION 152. Non-use of a Mark When

Excused. - 152.1. Non-use of a mark may be

excused if caused by circumstances arisingindependently of the will of the trademark

owner. Lack of funds shall not excuse non-use of

a mark.


13/87

152.2.The use of the mark in a form different

from the form in which it is registered, which

does not alter its distinctive character, shall notbe ground for cancellation or removal of the

mark and shall not diminish the protection

granted to the mark.


14/87

152.3.The use of a mark in connection with one

or more of the goods or services belonging to

the class in respect of which the mark isregistered shall prevent its cancellation or

removal in respect of all other goods or services

of the same class.


15/87

Uses by Related Companies

152.4.The use of a mark by a company related with

the registrant or applicant shall inure to the latter's

benefit, and such use shall not affect the validity of

such mark or of its registration: Provided, That suchmark is not used in such manner as to deceive the

public. If use of a mark by a person is controlled by

the registrant or applicant with respect to the nature

and quality of the goods or services, such use shall

inure to the benefit of the registrant or applicant. (n)


16/87

Administrative Actions for TM Enforcement

(i) Opposition(ii) Cancellation

(iii)Administrative actions before the Bureau of

Legal Affairs

(iv) Bureau of Customs Border Control

Civil Actions for TM Enforcement

(i) Trademark infringement(ii) Unfair competition

(iii)False designation of Origin

(iv) Criminal Actions


17/87

Rights of Registered Owner

SECTION 147. Rights Conferred. - 147.1. Theowner of a registered mark shall have the exclusive

right to prevent all third parties not having the

owner's consent from using in the course of trade

identical or similar signs or containers for goods or

services which are identical or similar to those in

respect of which the trademark is registered where

such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In

case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods

or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be

presumed.


18/87

147.2.The exclusive right of the owner of a well-known mark defined in Subsection 123.1(e) which is

registered in the Philippines, shall extend to goods

and services which are not similar to those in respect

of which the mark is registered: Provided, That useof that mark in relation to those goods or services

would indicate a connection between those goods or

services and the owner of the registered mark:

Provided further, That the interests of the owner ofthe registered mark are likely to be damaged by such

use. (n)


19/87

Non-actionable Use

SECTION 148. Use of Indications by Third

Parties for Purposes Other than those for which the

Mark is Used. - Registration of the mark shall not

confer on the registered owner the right to preclude

third parties from using bona fide their names,

addresses, pseudonyms, a geographical name, orexact indications concerning the kind, quality,

quantity, destination, value, place of origin, or time

of production or of supply, of their goods or

services: Provided, That such use is confined to thepurposes of mere identification or information and

cannot mislead the public as to the source of the

goods or services. (n)


20/87

Section 151. Cancellation - * * *

Section 151.2. Notwithstanding the foregoingprovisions, the court or the administrative agency

vested with jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate any

action to enforce the rights to a registered mark shall

likewise exercise jurisdiction to determine whetherthe registration of said mark may be cancelled in

accordance with this Act. The filing of a suit to

enforce the registered mark with the proper court or

agency shall exclude any other court or agency fromassuming jurisdiction over a subsequently filed

petition to cancel the same mark.


21/87

On the other hand, the earlier filing of petition

to cancel the mark with the Bureau of Legal

Affairs shall not constitute a prejudicial

question that must be resolved before an action

to enforce the rights to same registered mark

may be decided.


22/87

Section 134 Opposition

(1)any person who may be damaged by

registration; may be a registrant or user of an

identical or similar mark

(2)opposition shall be in writing and verified by

the oppositor or by any person on his behalf

who knows the facts

(3) specify the grounds on which it is based andinclude a statement of the facts relied upon


23/87

(4) certificates of registration of marks

registered in other countries or other

supporting documents mentioned in the

opposition shall be filed

(5) within thirty days from publication in the

OG, extendible up to 120 days


24/87

Section 151,Cancellation

(1)any person who believes that he is or will be

damaged by the registration

(2)Period for filing:(a)Within five (5) years from the date of the

registration of the mark under this Act


25/87

(b)At any time, if the registered mark becomes

the generic name for the goods or services, or

a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or

has been abandoned, or its registration was

obtained fraudulently or contrary to the

provisions of this Act, or if the registered

mark is being used by, or with the permission

of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the

source of the goods or services on or inconnection with which the mark is used


26/87

The primary significance of the registered mark

to the relevant public rather than purchaser

motivation shall be the test for determiningwhether the registered mark has become the

generic name of goods or services on or in

connection with which it has been used

(c) At any time, if the registered owner of the

mark without legitimate reason fails to use

the mark within the Philippines, or to cause it

to be used in the Philippines by virtue of alicense during an uninterrupted period of

three (3) years or longer.


27/87

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

SECTION 155. Remedies; Infringement. - Any

person who shall, without the consent of the owner

of the registered mark:

155.1.Use in commerce any reproduction,

counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of aregistered mark or the same container or a

dominant feature thereof in connection with the

sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of

any goods or services including other preparatorysteps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or

services on or in connection with which such use is

likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to

deceive; or


28/87

155.2.Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably

imitate a registered mark or a dominant feature

thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit,copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints,

packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements

intended to be used in commerce upon or in

connection with the sale, offering for sale,distribution, or advertising of goods or services on

or in connection with which such use is likely to

cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,

shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by

the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth:


29/87

Provided, That the infringement takes place at

the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection

155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless

of whether there is actual sale of goods or services

using the infringing material.


30/87

Elements of infringement:

1. Use of registered trademark or colorableimitation thereof or its dominant feature

(i) for the sale, distribution or advertising of

goods and services and other preparatory

steps, or(ii) on labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers,

receptacles or advertisements

2. Without the consent of the owner

3. Such use is likely to cause confusion, or tocause mistake, or to deceive


31/87

Exact imitation is not required

(i) Dominant feature test(ii) Holistic test

Actual sale is not required, preparatory steps are

sufficient

Actual confusion is not necessary, likelihood is

enough

(i) Confusion as to goods(ii) Confusion as to origin


32/87

Section 147.2 on well-known mark speaks of

connection with and damage to owner of the

mark arising from the use of the mark on

dissimilar goods


33/87


34/87

Axion vs. Kitchenmate


35/87

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals docketed as G.R. No. 100098, promulgated by the Supreme Court on December 29,

1995 was a litigation between H.D. Lee Company, Inc. of Delaware, USA and a Philippine company, Emerald Garment, whereby private

respondent H.D. Lee Company, as registrant of the trademark "LEE" in the Philippines sought cancellation of the trademark "STYLISTIC MR.

LEE" from the Supplemental Register in the name of the Philippine company.

The Bureau of Patents and Trademarks declared that STYLISTIC MR. LEE confusingly similar to MR. LEE on the basis of the dominant-feature

test. The word mark LEE is the dominant feature of both marks the use of which is likely to confuse consumers.

On the other hand, the HOLISTIC TEST mandates that the entirely of the marks in question must be considered in determining confusing

similarity. (ibid) Quoting Fruit of the Loom, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 405 (1984), the Supreme Court advanced that " (I)n

determining whether the marks are confusingly similar, a comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor. The trademarks in their

entirely as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. The

discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that

they may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other."

Section 155.1 on infringement now speaks of colorable

imitation of a registered mark or a dominant feature

thereof.


36/87

Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R.

No. L-78325, January 25, 1990(i) Side-by-side comparison is not the final test of

similarity

(ii) general confusion made by the article upon the

eye of the casual purchaser who is unsuspicious(iii)consumer must depend upon his recollection of

the appearance of the product which he

intends to purchase

(iv)consider the mark as a whole and not asdissected


37/87

(v) age, training and education of the usual

purchaser, the nature and cost of the article,

whether the article is bought for immediate

consumption and also the conditions under which

it is usually purchased


38/87

AMIGO MANUFACTURING, Inc. vs. CLUETT PEABODY CO.,

INC. G.R. No. 139300. March 14, 2001

Peabody:

1. GOLD TOE, under Certificate of Registration No. 6797 dated

September 22, 1958;

2. DEVICE, representation of a sock and magnifying glass on the

toe of a sock, under Certificate of Registration No. 13465 dated

January 25, 1968;3. DEVICE, consisting of a 'plurality of gold colored lines

arranged in parallel relation within a triangular area of toe of the

stocking and spread from each other by lines of contrasting color

of the major part of the stocking' under Certificate of RegistrationNo. 13887 dated May 9, 1968; and

4. LINENIZED, under Certificate of Registration No. 15440 dated

April 13, 1970.


39/87


40/87

f] The difference in sound occurs only in the final letter at the end


41/87

f] The difference in sound occurs only in the final letter at the end

of the marks. 'GOLD TOE' and 'GOLD TOP' are printed in

identical lettering. Both show [a] representation of a man's foot

wearing a sock. 'GOLD TOP' blatantly incorporates petitioner's

'LINENIZED' which by itself is a registered mark."

g] The similarities are of such degree, number and quality that the

overall impression given is that the two brands of socks are

deceptively the same, or at least very similar to each another.

SC rejected respondents argument that Peabody did not present

evidence of first use to be entitled to protection. Since Peabody

registered its trademarks under the principal register, the

requirement of prior use had already been fulfilled. There exists a

prima facie presumption of the correctness of the contents of the

certificates, including the date of first use. Petitioner has failed to

rebut this presumption.


42/87

PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INCORPORATED vs.

SHOEMART, INCORPORATED, and NORTH

EDSA MARKETING, INCORPORATED, G.R. No.148222, August 15, 2003

Issue: TM infringement

Facts:

1. P&D manufactures advertising display units orlight boxes, which utilize specially printed posters

sandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminated

with back lights.

2. It secured a TM registration for "Poster Ads"which petitioner's president said was a contraction

of "poster advertising." But the goods specified


43/87

3. But the goods covered were "stationeries such as

letterheads, envelopes, calling cards and

newsletters," which P&D did not actuallymanufacture.

The SC held:

1. Under ruling in Faberge Inc. vs. IntermediateAppellate Court, involving Section 20 of the old

Trademark Law, "the certificate of registration

issued by the Director of Patents can confer (upon

petitioner) the exclusive right to use its own

symbol only to those goods specified in the

certificate, subject to any conditions and


44/87

limitations specified in the certificate . . . . One who

has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does

not prevent the adoption and use of the sametrademark by others for products which are of a

different description." Faberge, Inc. was correct and

was in fact recently reiterated in Canon Kabushiki

Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals.2. Assuming arguendo that "Poster Ads" could validly

qualify as a trademark, the failure of P & D to secure

a trademark registration for specific use on the light

boxes meant that there could not have been any

trademark infringement since registration was an

essential element thereof.


45/87

Word- Analysis Approach and Sound Alikes

(i) SALONPAS and LIONPAS, TEXTWOOD

and DEXWOOD likely to cause confusion

(ii) "WRANGLER" and "WRANCO," not likely tocause confusion

Nature of the Goods and Channels of Trade

(i) ESSO for petroleum and for cigarettes

Purchasers Attitude


46/87

Mcdonalds Corporation and McGeorge Food

Industries, Inc. vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc et

al,G.R. No. 143993, August 18, 2004

1. Remedial law; Petition for Review on Certiorari

2. Trademark infringement; unfair competition;

review of factual findings(a) nature of business

(b) kind of goods sold

(c ) use of Big Mak as corporate name

(d) holistic test

(e) dominant-feature test(f) passing off

(g) trademark use

3. Trademark infringement; cause of action and

elements


47/87

a] The cause of action based on the first part of Section 22

Elements

b] Generic and descriptive character

c] Prior users of trademarkd] Element of confusion: confusion as to goods and confusion

as to origin

e] Market consideration and price differences

f] Dominant-feature test vs. Holistic test

4. Unfair competition; elementsa] elements ofan action for unfair competition

b] dissimilarities in the packaging

5. Remedies


48/87


49/87

(a) Elements under Section 22

(b) wines and cigarettes are related goods

(c) Product indicated in the certificate of registration

(d) Types of confusion : goods vs. origin: The SupremeCourt adopted these two-part analysis innSterling

Products International, Incorporated v. Farbenfabriken

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, et al., and in the recent decision

inMcDonalds Corporation McGeorge Food Industries,Inc. vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 143993,

August 18, 200

(e) Dominant Feature Test vs. Holistic Test

(f) McDonalds Corporation McGeorge Food Industries, Inc.

vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 143993, August

18, 2004, demonstrated that the application of one test

excludes the other. Here the Supreme Court applied the

test of dominancy and rejected the holistic test


50/87

Societe Des Produits Nestl, S.A. v. Court of Appeals, where the

Court explicitly rejected the holistic test in this wise:

[T]he totality or holistic test is contrary to theelementary postulate of the law on trademarks andunfair competition that confusing similarity is tobe determined on the basis of visual, aural,connotative comparisons and overallimpressions engendered by the marks incontroversy as they are encountered in therealities of the marketplace. (Emphasis

supplied)


51/87

Trademark Conflicts and Prior Use


52/87


53/87

168.2.Any person who shall employ deception or any

other means contrary to good faith by which he shall

pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which

he deals, or his business, or services for those of the

one having established such goodwill, or who shall

commit any acts calculated to produce said result,shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be

subject to an action therefor.

168.3.In particular, and without in any way limiting

the scope of protection against unfair competition, thefollowing shall be deemed guilty of unfair

competition:


54/87

(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives

them the general appearance of goods of another

manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goodsthemselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which

they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or

in any other feature of their appearance, which would

be likely to influence purchasers to believe that thegoods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer,

other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who

otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as

shall deceive the public and defraud another of his

legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such

goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling

such goods with a like purpose;


55/87

(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or

who employs any other means calculated to induce

the false belief that such person is offering theservices of another who has identified such services

in the mind of the public; or

(c) Any person who shall make any false

statement in the course of trade or who shall commit

any other act contrary to good faith of a nature

calculated to discredit the goods, business or services

of another.168.4.The remedies provided by Sections 156, 157

and 161 shall apply mutatis mutandis. (Sec. 29, R.A.

No. 166a)


56/87


57/87

(iii) the defendant should have clothed the goods

with such appearance for the purpose of deceiving

the public and defrauding the complaining party ofhis legitimate trade

(iv)Unfair competition usually arises in cases of

trade dress imitation

(v)Plaintiff in an unfair competition action must

show that his goods have acquired goodwill and

reputation among consumers


58/87

(vi) The true test of unfair competition is

whether the acts of defendant are such as arecalculated to deceive the ordinary buyer making

his purchases under the ordinary conditions

which prevail in the particular trade to which

the controversy relates

(vii)Fraudulent intent on the part of defendant

to pass off his goods or business as or for that of

plaintiff is necessary


59/87

Section 168.2 subjects to liability for unfair

competition any person who shall make anyfalse statement in the course of trade or who

shall commit any other act contrary to good

faith of a nature calculated to discredit the

goods, business or services of another

This is called disparaging use of marks or trade

libel in other jurisdiction


60/87

Examples: Genital Electric for panties General

Electric; Inutel Inside Intel Inside; Where

Theres Bugs, Theres Life for insecticides

Where Theres Life, Theres Bud


61/87


62/87


63/87


64/87

SECTION 169. False Designations of Origin;

False Description or Representation. - 169.1. Any

person who, on or in connection with any goods

or services, or any container for goods, uses in

commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or

device, or any combination thereof, or any false

designation of origin, false or misleadingdescription of fact, or false or misleading

representation of fact, which:


65/87


66/87

Section 169.1 False Designation of Origin any

false designation of origin, false ormisleading description of fact, or false or

misleading representation of fact, which:

(a) Is likely to cause confusion, or to cause

mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,connection, or association of such person

with another person, or as to the origin,

sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods,

services, or commercial activities by another

person; or


67/87


68/87

169.2.Any goods marked or labeled incontravention of the provisions of this Section

shall not be imported into the Philippines or

admitted entry at any customhouse of the

Philippines. The owner, importer, or consigneeof goods refused entry at any customhouse

under this section may have any recourse under

the customs revenue laws or may have the

remedy given by this Act in cases involvinggoods refused entry or seized. (Sec. 30, R.A. No.

166a)


69/87

Remedies and Reliefs In Unfair Competition

SECTION 156. Actions, and Damages and

Injunction for Infringement.

(1)damages suffered shall be either

(i) the reasonable profit which the complainingparty would have made, had the defendant

not infringed his rights, or

(ii) the profit which the defendant actually

made out of the infringement; or


70/87

(iii) if not ascertainable, a reasonable percentage

based upon the amount of gross sales of the

defendant or the value of the services in

connection with which the mark or trade name

was used

(2) impounding during the pendency of theaction, sales invoices and other documents

evidencing sales

(3) where actual intent to mislead the public or to

defraud the complainant is shown, in thediscretion of the court, the damages may be

doubled


71/87

(4) where actual intent to mislead the public or

to defraud the complainant is shown, in thediscretion of the court, the damages may be

doubled

(5) complainant, upon proper showing, may

also be granted injunction

(6) under Section 157, destruction of infringing

goods and materials used for infringement;

removal of infringing mark not enough tojustify release of goods


72/87

Search and seizure in civil cases now allowed under

Supreme Court circular A.M. NO. 02-1-06-SC

SEC. 2. The writ of search and seizure. Where any

delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the

intellectual property right holder or where there isdemonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed, the

intellectual property right holder or his duly

authorized representative in a pending civil action

for infringement or who intends to commence such


73/87

an action may apply ex parte for the issuance of a

writ of search and seizure directing the alleged

infringing defendant or expected adverse party to

admit into his premises the persons named in the

order and to allow the search, inspection, copying,

photographing, audio and audiovisual recording or

seizure of any document and article specified in theorder


74/87

Administrative Actions for TM Enforcement

Section 166, Goods Bearing Infringing Marks

or Trade Names may be barred from

commerce through customs exclusion

proceeding


75/87

Criminal Penalties for Counterfeiting

SECTION 170. Penalties. - Independent of thecivil and administrative sanctions imposed by

law, a criminal penalty of imprisonment from

two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine ranging

from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to Twohundred thousand pesos(P200,000), shall be

imposed on any person who is found guilty of

committing any of the acts mentioned in Section

155, Section 168 and Subsection 169.1. (Arts.

188 and 189, Revised Penal Code)


76/87


77/87


78/87


79/87


80/87


81/87

Trademarks Online

VeriSign, estimates that 70% of domain names

associated with top brands are not registered by

the true brand owner, prompting rights holders to

defensively register their marks as domain names

Trademark owners are also facing new types of

infringement, including user-traffic diversion

through keywords and meta tags, or unauthorizedlinking and framing


82/87

Metatags

A 'meta tag' or 'meta data' is a keyword or

phrase embedded in a website's HTML(hypertext markup language) code as a means

for Internet search engines to identify and

categorize the contents of the website


83/87


84/87

Sale of Trademarks as Keywords

Retailers, for example, have purchased keywords

so that their banner advertisements are displayed

whenever certain trademarked products are the

object of a search

Retailers, for example, have purchased keywords

so that their banner advertisements are displayed

whenever certain trademarkedproducts are theobject of a search


85/87

In Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Netscape

Communications Corporation, C.D. Calif., No. SA

CV 99-320 AHS (Eex) (June 24, 1999), the Court

denied preliminary relief stating that the 'Playboy'

and 'Playmate' keywords sold by the defendant

were used by searchers as common or generic

words, not the marks


86/87

Pop-Up Advertisements

Pop-up ads are used as marketing tools designed

to capture consumers' attention, and are based on

software designed to track users' online activity

and then deliver targeted advertising based on

their preferences


87/87

required use as condition for registration section 124.2. the

Documents