ILNews

IU professor helps get pesky scrivener’s error removed from Trademark Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One pesky scrivener’s error that altered the protection provided by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 has been corrected thanks to the efforts of an Indiana University professor.

Tim Lemper, clinical associate professor of business law in the I.U. Kelley School of Business, wrote two articles about the mistake, advocating that Congress make a correction. These articles not only became the catalyst for the lobbying effort but also provided the new wording that was passed and signed into law on Oct. 5, 2012.

In drafting the 2006 law, Congress intended to provide greater protection for famous trademarks. As part of that law, Congress sought to protect owners of federal trademark registrations from dilution claims based on state law but not federal law.

However because of the drafting error, owners of federal registrations received complete immunity from any type of dilution claim, under state or federal law, even if the registrant was using a mark that diluted the distinctiveness or tarnished the reputation of a famous mark.

Although many others dismissed the error, the I.U. professor believed the errant punctuation could affect commercial use of a famous name. It was clearly a drafting error, Lemper said, and several people in the trademark bar assumed the courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board would not apply the law in a way that was obviously a drafting error.

“But,” Lemper stated, “courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board apply statutes as they are written, not necessarily as they were intended to be written.”

Here is the actual Section 4 (c)(6):
The ownership by a person of a valid registration…shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that –
(A)(i) is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of State; and
(ii) seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment; or
(B) asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark….

Here is the Lemper redraft that was adopted by Congress:
The ownership by a person of a valid registration…shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that –
(A) is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State; and
(B)(i) seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment; or
(ii) asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark….

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT