Re: 2 owners

Larissa Lambino <larissa[_at_]skyinet.net> wrote:
>
> I've assumed that B has brought an action for infringement in either
> U,V or W country - let's make it "U" country - and that under U's laws,
> A's use of the trademark is considered infringement.
>
> Nevertheless, would the suit prosper even if:
>
> a. A has posted clear warnings on his internet site, like "only
> for persons in countries XYZ", or "this site can only be
> accessed by persons in countries XYZ", and the like; and
>
> b. assuming that US jurisprudence is basis for persuasive authority
> in countries UVW, can we consider obiter of the Supreme Court
> in Reno v. ACLU regarding the current technical impossibility of
> screening all viewers of a given website, i.e. to bolster an
> argument that the safeguards employed by A should be considered
> sufficient.

I couldn't opine on the merits of such a lawsuit; but I think both of these positions (a and b) come down to the question of whether the mere accessibility of the web site by citizens of UVW constitutes trademark USE in those countries, and whether such use would create consumer confusion.

If it would, then no posted warnings or claims of impossibility of screening would be sufficient to shield A from liability for infringement.

A would do better to publish a clear disclaimer on her site, expressly and conspicuously stating that there is no affiliation between A and B. I think that would do more to avoid consumer confusion than would any warning that the Web site, though globally accessible, is intended only for countries XYZ.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> Received on Tue Jul 15 1997 - 15:31:24 GMT