加拿大论文代写:商标注册

09 10月 加拿大论文代写:商标注册

加拿大论文代写:商标注册

商标注册本身是一件困难的事情,可以说,在续展的情况下,甚至还有更多的挑战。必须提交有关使用统计的证据。商标不得被稀释,因为其他公司开始使用它,公司的所有者没有采取任何行动反对它。美国商标局规定,即使首次申请商标注册,也必须有商标使用的样本。此外,在理解什么会构成商标侵权和什么不可能有不一致之处。然而,尽管有各种不同的问题,但在商标侵权诉讼中经常提到的主要问题是商标的显著性。根据美国法律,被认为具有“独特性”的词语或符号很容易获得商标。被定义为固有区别的词语进一步分为三大类。它们是幻想的、任意的或暗示的。这些奇特的词通常是由公司创造的词,它是公司设计的一个全新的词或符号。这类词很容易获得商标。
阿伯克龙比和惠誉公司诉狩猎的世界,将537楼2D 4(2D电路1976)是一个里程碑式的案例对商标显著性的光谱,被引用为例,寻求建立商标保护。对独特性的评估或独特性的频谱测试经常引用阿伯克龙比和惠誉的案例。

加拿大论文代写:商标注册

While the registration of a trademark is by itself a difficult thing, it can be said that in the context of renewals there are even more challenges. Evidence has to be submitted about the usage statistics. The trademark must not have become diluted because some other company started using it and the owner of the company did not take any action against it. The United States Trademark Office makes it a requirement that it would be necessary for specimens of trademark usage even when the trademark registration is being applied for the first time. In addition there are inconsistencies in the understanding of what would constitute a trademark violation and what would not. However even with all these different forms of issues, the main topic that is often raised in the context of trademark infringement law suits are that of the distinctiveness of the trademark. According to the United States law the words or symbol that is deemed “inherently distinctive” can easily acquire a trademark. The words that are defined as inherently distinctive are further classified into three major classifications. They are fanciful, arbitrary or suggestive. The fanciful words are usually the words that are coined by the companies it is an entirely new word or symbol devised by the corporation. It is easy to obtain trademarks for these kinds of words.
Abercrombie & Fitch Company v. Hunting World, Incorporated 537 F. 2d 4(2d Cir. 1976) was a landmark case in establishing for the spectrum of trademark distinctiveness that has been cited into cases which sought trademarked protection. The test for the assessment of distinctiveness or the spectrum of distinctiveness often cites the Abercrombie & Fitch case.