|
In nearly every case brought before the courts since the landmark 1999 ruling for Excite against Playboy, the result has been pretty simple: If the term is a common English word found in the dictionary and in public use prior to the establishment of the company (and sometimes afterwards), then there is a limit to the extent of trademark protections. However if the term does NOT fit that description, it is unlikely that use of the term by an unrelated third party will be acceptable.
"Playboy" is a common English term co-opted by Hugh Hefner when he founded his magazine. He can only call for enforcement of trademark law when a _product_ is marketed under that same name. He cannot call for enforcement whenever that term is used, i.e. in advertisements that use the term in its traditional, common way or in metatags or domain names or keyword bidding.
In another landmark case, Estee Lauder Cosmetics won a verdict when it was decided that "Estee Lauder" was a personal name, and therefor was protected to a much greater extent. In that case, as an example of the extent of enforcement, an Estee Lauder "consultant" who sold Estee Lauder products was using the term in their advertising. The court instructed them to stop doing that, as it infringed Estee Lauder's right to market the term solely for the benefit of the larger parent company if they so desired ... which they did.
It's amusing to me that Excite won the case against Playboy ... because neither term can be protected in the same circumstance. If an advertiser wants to use the term "excite" in their ad copy, Excite can't do a darn thing about it. Just so long as there is no pretense that the third party is a search engine or is infringing on any other Excite property. Hee hee.
|