Resolving Intellectual Property Rights (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

Resolving Intellectual Property Rights
Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course Title:
Date:
TO: Mr. Shep HowardFROM: Betty FullerDATE: 6th September 2015SUBJECT: Resolving Intellectual Property Rights.IntroductionI am writing to you in response to the procedure of the marketing plan of Simply Green Products. The plan will have the basis on how the legal issues of intellectual property rights will be resolved.Legal Issues Supporting SGP to Use SafePac as their Trademark.According to my research, Simply Green Products (SGP) has the right to register SafePac as its trademark. From my findings, both Safe Choice and SGP are not competitors. SGP produces biodegradable packing materials for transporting apples and pears from the orchards. On the other hand, Safe Choices produces emergency weather kit in the form of a backpack. The products of the two firms are not substitutes for each other. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allow coexistence of trademarks that are identical. The coexistence of identical trademark will only hold if applied on commodities that are unrelated (Cimoli et al., 2011).
A complete search shows that there exist a similar trademark but not identical to SafePac. Safe Choices has a similar mark by the name SafePack and SafePacs. SafePack and SafePacs are similar to SafePac, but the trademarks are not identical. There is a high chance that USPTO will not reject the registration of SafePac as a trademark for SGP.Will the use of SafePac.com violate the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006?The Trademark Dilution Act of 2006 defines dilution in two ways: by tarnishment and also dilution by blurring. According to Rosén (2012), dilution by tarnishment is said to occur when an association arise from the similarity between a mark and the famous mark which in turn harm the reputation of the famous trademark. Dilution by blurring refers to an association that ruins a trademark’s uniqueness.
The violation of the Trademark Dilution Act of 2006 will be in terms of dilution by blurring but not dilution by tarnishment. Dilution by blurring will occur since Safe Choices’ trademarks will no longer be unique. Dilution by tarnishment will not occur since SGP’s trademark will not harm the reputation of the existing Safe Choices’ marks. Simply Green Products and Safe Choices produce different products. Therefore, the two firms are not competitors in any way. Though, the USPTO will grant SGP the permission to use SafePac as our mark, there is a likelihood of violating the law through by blurring.The Trademark Dilution Act of 2006 also states that a trademark should qualify for dilution protection if it is widely famous (Merges, 2011). Safe Choices’ marks are more famous than SafePac since they were registered in the year 2002. Also, Safe Choices have run the online marketing of its marks.
Will the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) be violated?ACPA is one of the American Law passed in the year 1999. The law established the path of action for trafficking in, registering or using a confusing mark (Meiners, Ringleb & Edwards, 2012) .Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act will be violated if SGP uses SafePac.com. The trademark for Safe Choices and Simply Green Products are similar. The similarity of the two companies’ marks is likely to bring confusion to the consumers. Customers will have a wrong designation of the origin of the products. Safe Choices may blame Simply Green Products with an attempt of cybersquatting. SGP will be accused with an intention of having the domain reassigned to their control. Though, the intention of SGP in registering SafePac as their mark is not in bad faith of reducing the profits of Safe Choices.Effects of My Resolutions on the Marketing Option available to the Company.Simply Green Products is an eco-friendly firm. The firm has a high chance of increasing its sales if it uses technology in its marketing of its products. There is a need to embrace technology by the firm for productive results. Chaudhry & Zimmerman (2013), argues that it’s essential for a firm to protect its intellectual property right.One of my resolutions is to register SafePac as our trademark. The effects of this resolution are that it will give SGP’s products a brand name that will be recognized nationwide. There is a high possibility of the United States Patent Trademark Office accepting SafePac as our new trademark. USPTO will consider that the Safe Choices’ marks are only similar but not identical to our ...