Loss of Trademark Rights §1064(3) Self-Quiz










Terms which become generic can be cancelled under:
Choice 1 Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921).
Choice 2 Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fund Group, 684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1982).
Choice 3 §1060.
Choice 4 §1064.
The failure to use a mark for what period of time would tend to show that the mark has been abandoned?
Choice 1 1 year.
Choice 2 2 years.
Choice 3 3 years.
Choice 4 5 years.
?Naked licensing? means:
Choice 1 Granting a license to all of an owner’s marks rather than for a single mark.
Choice 2 Granting a license to a mark which in no way limits use or permits the owner to control use.
Choice 3 Granting a license for a mark without charging a fee.
Choice 4 Something lewd which had no place in the serious study of law.
Lewis owns a catering business called ?Lewis? Loud Lobster Barbecue.? He has registered the arbitrary mark and has properly maintained the registration. Over the past several years, various ?Loud Lobster Barbecue? catering companies have sprung up in the towns near where Lewis lives and operates. He recalls hearing something about this from a few of his clients, and his mother even called one day incorrectly thinking that her son had finally expanded his business and she was oh so very proud. Lewis is a laid back guy who is happy with the business he generates and doesn?t mind if others use his mark, as long as they don?t encroach on his territory. The main problem here is that:
Choice 1 Lewis has granted an implied naked license to these other mark users.
Choice 2 Lewis’ failure to police these infringing uses of his mark may lead to abandonment.
Choice 3 Lewis’ mark is weak, because it is merely arbitrary and not fanciful.
Choice 4 Lewis is an underachiever with an overbearing mother.
In the University Bookstore v. Board of Regents case, the court found that the mark in question had not been abandoned despite the use of the mark by multiple unauthorized parties for a period in excess of two centuries (!) because:

Choice 1 The mark in question related to an education entity, which is granted significant leeway in the requirements for maintaining rights in intellectual property.
Choice 2 Other schools acted in much the same way for an exceedingly long period of time.
Choice 3 The mark (“Wisconsin Badgers”) was arbitrary and therefore worthy of greater protection than a merely descriptive mark.
Choice 4 There is no such case.

© 2006 - 2018 National Paralegal College