The defendant filed an appeal that demonstrated a conflict in which the plaintiffs wanted a right to use the Name "Burger King" as they had registered under the Federal Trade Mark Act. The defendants also wanted to use the same trademark as they had registered under the Illinois Trademark Act. The district court resolved the case. The court said that it had restrained the respondents who were not entitled to use the name "Burger King" anywhere else in Illinois except for Mattoon. The court further ordered the plaintiffs not to use the name "Burger King" in Mattoon, Illinois.
Reasons for the Decision
Many people try to understand the rationale behind this ruling by the court and its significance in the field of Intellectual Property in the United States Jurisprudence. The Lanham Act, which was enacted in1946, is the legislation that governs trademark law (Campi& Dueñas, 2018). In its definition, the word trade is used to mean any word, name or symbol, a combination or a device that is used by a person or which a person has legal intention to use in business and makes an application to register the same through Principal Register(Campi& Dueñas, 2018). The person must identify and differentiate their goods and indicate the origin of the products even if the source was unknown.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Trademark is not just a verb like any other. It is not legal to trademark a word, even if one has filed it with the government. A trademark is considered legal under the condition that is used (Bettig, 2018). Even the most creative brand names that exist in the world do not become trademarks until they are brought into use. The sole exception of this rule applies where the owner of the trademark name truly and legally intends to use the trademark under the law of trademark. The intent to use the trademark must meet the trademark law demands as outlined in the Lanham Act.
Trademarks come about with two benefits in the market. The first advantage is that trademark prevents brand confusion among customers and consumers (Bettig, 2018). The trademark prevents other competitors in the market from using the brand name of the owner to their advantage. The second advantage is that the owner of the trademark has the right to use the rand name freely all over the country. Once the brand name has been used for a continuous period of five years, the owner gains an incontestable legal right to use it. These rights may, however, be challenged under specific circumstances outlined in the Lanham Act.
Ruling and the Significance of the Ruling
In the federal courts, the Burger King sued the Hoots since they were running their own Burger King, located in Mattoon, Illinois. The Burger King argued that their right to use the trademark Burger King had been hindered as they had registered at the federal level. The court ruled in favor of the Hoots as they used the name Burger King even before the registration at the federal level. Common law fortifies the Hoots right to use the name Burger King but within a 20-mile radius. The federal registration, however, protects Burger King in the rest of Illinois.
The significance of this case is to show that federal registration wields more power that no registration or state registration. The state registration came to effect up to where the Hoots were operating. If there had been federal registration, this limitation would not have arisen.
Article: ‘Copyrighting Culture’ by Bettig
This article relates to intellectual property as it talks about the power of Congress to legislate on the significance of trademark issues. It goes further to give an example of the case of Philco Corp v Phillips Manufacturing Company ( Campi& Dueñas, 2018) . The court held that the importance of the Trade Marks Act was to protect the federally registered marks so that they may not be obstructed by state law. The article further states that any creation of a trademark is aimed at benefiting the creator of the same. The intellectual property rights may have numerous consequences on the industry substantially or directly.
References
Bettig, R. V. (2018). Copyrighting culture: The political economy of intellectual property . Routledge.
Campi, M., & Dueñas, M. (2018). Intellectual property rights, trade agreements, and international trade. Research Policy .
