Tom Maliska writes that there is no legal reason that a riff can not become a trademark for a recording artist. I believe that this misconceives the nature of a "trademark."
As defined in section 45 of the Lanham Act, a trademark "includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof used by a person ... to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown."
A riff simply does not serve that function. It is like the sports writer who refers to the "trademark swing" of Stan Musial. Unique, yes. Identifiable by sports fans as his swing, yes. But a "trademark" in the sense meant by trademark law, no!
Prof. Joseph P. Bauer Phone: 219-631-6514 Notre Dame Law School FAX: 219-631-6371E-mail: Joseph.P.Bauer.1[_at_]nd.edu Received on Wed Feb 08 1995 - 19:07:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:14 GMT