United States Trademark Law - Differences From Related Laws

Differences From Related Laws

Unlike copyright law which provides for criminal penalties as well as civil damages, trademark law in the United States is almost entirely enforced through private lawsuits. The exception is in the case of criminal counterfeiting of goods. Otherwise, the responsibility is entirely on the mark owner to file suit in either state or federal civil court in order to restrict an infringing use. Failure to "police" a mark by stopping infringing uses can result in the loss of protection.

Also in contrast to copyright or patent law, trademark protection has no expiration. As long as the mark is continually used, it can be protected from infringement indefinitely.

Because federal trademark law is derived from Congress' Commerce Clause power, and not a specific clause in the U.S. Constitution (like copyrights and patents), there must be some degree of interstate commerce present for a trademark to receive Lanham Act protection. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the first federal trademark law by finding that Congress could not stretch the Copyright Clause to cover trademarks, so Congress had to fall back to only those trademarks used in interstate commerce instead.

Read more about this topic:  United States Trademark Law

Famous quotes containing the words differences, related and/or laws:

    No sooner had I glanced at this letter, than I concluded it to be that of which I was in search. To be sure, it was, to all appearance, radically different from the one of which the Prefect had read us so minute a description.... But, then, the radicalness of these differences ... these things ... were strongly corroborative of suspicion.
    Edgar Allan Poe (1809–1849)

    The custard is setting; meanwhile
    I not only have my own history to worry about
    But am forced to fret over insufficient details related to large
    Unfinished concepts that can never bring themselves to the point
    Of being, with or without my help, if any were forthcoming.
    John Ashbery (b. 1927)

    With a generous endowment of motherhood provided by legislation, with all laws against voluntary motherhood and education in its methods repealed, with the feminist ideal of education accepted in home and school, and with all special barriers removed in every field of human activity, there is no reason why woman should not become almost a human thing. It will be time enough then to consider whether she has a soul.
    Crystal Eastman (1881–1928)