New Utah Law Involving Trademarks

SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch

Dave_Z

Electrifying GuyTop Member
Impact
394
Just got this off from EFF after reading an email from one of my mailings:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005185.php

The Utah legislature has quietly passed a dangerous law allowing trademark owners to prevent their marks from being used as keywords to generate comparative ads. If this law takes effect, a company like Chevrolet couldn't purchase "sponsored link" space on the Google results page when a user types "Toyota" as part of a search query--at least if the latter term is registered in Utah as an "electronic registration mark."

Link to the law in question:

http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/sbillamd/sb0236.htm
 
1
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Unstoppable Domains — AI StorefrontUnstoppable Domains — AI Storefront
Hmmm --- a law that creates a disincentive for search providers to allow their service to operate in the state. Imagine trying to stay business competitive with marginalized internet search.
 
0
•••
jagusa said:
Hmmm --- a law that creates a disincentive for search providers to allow their service to operate in the state. Imagine trying to stay business competitive with marginalized internet search.

Thats a good point indeed. And the sad thing is I'm sure all the businesses/TM holders really supported this law thinking it was going to offer them much more protection for their marks :)

I wonder how this will work when it comes to companies that hold the same TM in different categories. Someone is going to have get the short end of the stick so to speak.

This seems a bit absurd, given that comparative ads/shopping is protected as Fair Use. But I guess in the context they are talking about, it is not. To be honest it doesn't make sense to allow a company like Chevrolet to use Toyota as a keyword. They are essentially trying to deceive customers or steal them away, but they're using their competitors TM in order to do it.

This whole situation (current TM law) is just a complete mess in general and it doesn't make things easier when individual states throw random lions into the arena half way into the match :)
 
0
•••
This snip makes it almost the entire article here, but it's the "why" behind the "what", to a certain extent.

Aside from its constitutional flaws, the law is just bad public policy. It undermines the fundamental purpose of trademarks: to improve consumer access to accurate information about goods and services. Trademarks are just shorthand terms that designate the origin of a product. Comparative advertising uses those shorthand terms to provide more information about the trademarked product and competitive products. That's why comparative trademark use is clearly protected under federal trademark law. If it weren't, Pepsi wouldn't be able to tell consumers that more people think Pepsi tastes better than Coke, and Apple wouldn't be able to make fun of Microsoft on national television every night.

It won't withstand any sort of legal or lobbying challenge; the law isn't practical and isn't in the best interest of the consumer nor the manufacturer... there had to be more of a "hand" in it than what we see, but the invisible hand here is lost on me.

-Allan :gl:
 
0
•••
It won't stand up in court, it doesn't make sense anyway.
 
0
•••
BonkersTwo said:
It won't stand up in court, it doesn't make sense anyway.
The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel for the State of Utah (lawyers who advise the state legislature) - Agrees :hehe: From the bottom of the legislation...To quote parts:
This legislation allows the registration of an electronic mark that would prohibit the triggering of an advertisement for a competitor. The most prominent application for this type of mark is the use of user-entered search terms in an Internet search engine to trigger advertisements. These triggered advertisements are often advertisements for a competitor of an entity whose name is entered in the search engine by a potential customer. Because of the potential impact on interstate commerce from the state's regulation of electronic registration mark use on Internet search engines, this legislation has a high probability of being held to be unconstitutional.

The Commerce Clause to the United States Constitution provides that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. (U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 8). This provision also has a "dormant" aspect that "prohibits state . . . regulation that discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce." General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 287 (1997) (Citations omitted). Although the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause is not implicated when Congress has delegated its power to regulate in an area to the states, that delegation "must be either 'expressly stated' or 'made unmistakably clear.'" New York State Dairy Foods, Inc. v. Northeast Dairy Compact Comm'n, 198 F.3d 1, 20 (citations omitted). Further, this delegation must be specific to that state action challenged. See Ind. Community Bankers Ass'n v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 838 F.2d 969, 973-77 (8th Cir. 1988) (holding that although Congress authorized states to allow a bank's acquisition by out-of-state entity, Congress did not authorize restrictions on acquired banks).
....on and on...
In ACLU v. Johnson, the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that a New Mexico statute that prohibited the dissemination of material harmful to minors by computer violated the Commerce Clause because it applied to material that was being disseminated over the Internet. Id. at 1152, 1161-63. This legislation is not dissimilar from the laws struck down in ACLU v. Johnson, in that it has the effect of requiring entities outside of Utah to verify the location of a user or ensure that all content complies with Utah law. Additionally, the benefit to the state from this legislation is likely less than in ACLU v. Johnson, which dealt with the protection of minors from pornography. Thus, in addition to regulating conduct outside of Utah, this legislation also likely provides a benefit that is substantially outweighed by the burdens on interstate commerce. For these reasons, this legislation has a high probability of being held to be unconstitutional.
For several reasons, the lawyers for the state, themselves, don't believe the federal courts would hold this up. I especially :hearts: the part I highlighted in red. I see Utah being able to enforce that one real easy......NOT :laugh: We shall see :guilty:
 
0
•••
People, are you saying the Mormons don't know what they are doing?
 
1
•••
fonzie_007 said:
People, are you saying the Mormons don't know what they are doing?
First the crazy legislature. Now we have to bring religion into this? :guilty:
 
0
•••
0
•••
Dynadot — .com TransferDynadot — .com Transfer

We're social

Spaceship
Domain Recover
DomainEasy — Zero Commission
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back