Re: Dracula

From: Mark Lemley <MLEMLEY[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:08:07 -0500

Bob Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, the title of a single work does not function as a trademark
> and will not be granted trademark registration. To become a trademark,
> the title must be the title of a series of works, or be associated with
> the continuing sale of merchandise, not of just a single motion picture
> or other work.
>


All right, since Bob raised this point (which has always bothered me), let me pursue it:

(1) I know this is the PTO rule; but is there caselaw that denies protection even on a common-law theory in such cases?

(2) what's the rationale for this rule? Surely if I sell only one product under my trademark, I can still protect it. Why is the result different for artistic works?

Mark A. Lemley
Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu
Note CHANGED office phone: 512/232-1342

Information on UT's Intellectual Property program: http://www.utexas.edu/law/acadaff/intelprop/

My publications list: http://www.law.utexas.edu/lemley/pubs.htm Received on Mon Jul 20 1998 - 16:08:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT