Comments on: Trademarks in Furniture? http://www.joegratz.net/2004/11/04/trademarks-in-furniture/ Joe Gratz's blog Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:55:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Wes Felter http://www.joegratz.net/2004/11/04/trademarks-in-furniture/comment-page-1/#comment-331 Wes Felter Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:55:10 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2004/11/04/trademarks-in-furniture/#comment-331 Isn't this the point of design patents? If they didn't file a patent or the patent is expired, too bad. Don't use a trademark to do a patent's job. Isn’t this the point of design patents? If they didn’t file a patent or the patent is expired, too bad. Don’t use a trademark to do a patent’s job.

]]> By: Adam http://www.joegratz.net/2004/11/04/trademarks-in-furniture/comment-page-1/#comment-330 Adam Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:38:40 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2004/11/04/trademarks-in-furniture/#comment-330 This puts me in mind of "look and feel" arguments--am I way off base here? This puts me in mind of “look and feel” arguments–am I way off base here?

]]> By: James Grimmelmann http://www.joegratz.net/2004/11/04/trademarks-in-furniture/comment-page-1/#comment-329 James Grimmelmann Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:19:31 +0000 http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2004/11/04/trademarks-in-furniture/#comment-329 Well, it depends on what you think the implications of uncopyrightability are. If you treat it as a deliberate decision by Congress that protection not be available for certain classes of subject matter, than trademarks in uncopyrightable items are an end run around Congressional limits on copyright in a straight Dastar mold. But if you think it's more of a jurisdictional line (this is where copyright ends; beyond this frontier lies trademark, where trademark is appropriate), then go ahead and trademark your chaise lounge. Now, to me, it would seem anomalous if you could get broader trademark protection for something that isn't copyrightable in the first place than for something that Congress considered sufficiently creatively valuable to deem worthy of copyright protection. But this is the kind of battle of negative inferences that majorities and dissents can quite easily get into, each accusing the other of reading Congressional silence the wrong way. There are similar problems at the trademark/patent boundary too, are there not? Well, it depends on what you think the implications of uncopyrightability are. If you treat it as a deliberate decision by Congress that protection not be available for certain classes of subject matter, than trademarks in uncopyrightable items are an end run around Congressional limits on copyright in a straight Dastar mold. But if you think it’s more of a jurisdictional line (this is where copyright ends; beyond this frontier lies trademark, where trademark is appropriate), then go ahead and trademark your chaise lounge.

Now, to me, it would seem anomalous if you could get broader trademark protection for something that isn’t copyrightable in the first place than for something that Congress considered sufficiently creatively valuable to deem worthy of copyright protection. But this is the kind of battle of negative inferences that majorities and dissents can quite easily get into, each accusing the other of reading Congressional silence the wrong way.

There are similar problems at the trademark/patent boundary too, are there not?

]]>