The ideal situation for a mark owner is to have the mark fall under: §1053. §1058. §1064. §1065.

If a mark is incontestable under �1065, an accused infringer could still argue that: The registrant has abandoned the mark. The mark is functional. The theory of estoppel applies. All of the above.

Once a �1115 defense to �1065 incontestability has been successfully argued: The defendant has won the case. The defendant must still demonstrate fair use. The plaintiff has lost the case. The plaintiff can still prove the mark is valid.

The ?fair use? defense to trademark infringement depends on: The defendant’s good faith use of the term to describe goods. The defendant’s innocent use of the term to identify origin. The plaintiff’s warehousing of marks. None of the above.

Hungry Ron?s Burger Joint specializes in low-quality, high-sodium meals. They advertise their most popular burger as ?bigger, saltier, and tastier than a Big Mac.? Is this permissible under trademark law? Yes, it is comparative advertising. Yes, because the term “Big Mac” is being used generically. No, because it uses a valid mark without permission. No, because it’s just plain wrong.

© 2006 - 2024 National Paralegal College