Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[concerned001]

I have a web site and each page has an htm name.     

Can I use a copyrighted registered name belonging to another and then dot htm.

for example    cocacola.htm    ibm.htm    or maybe     apple.htm

Could a registered owner of trade name suggest to me or my host provider I'd better rename that web page to something else?  While I suppose they could suggest anything with threat of legal action, is there some trademark law saying trade  names cannot be used in html coding?

thanks

[concerned001]

Use registered copyright name in html coding would include use in html title of site. 
Reason being Google and other search engines look for words linked to what people are searching.

  If site is about apples you eat or apple ipods search engines would pick up on Apple in web page html title.

Thanks

[Kaitlin]

There is no such thing as a "copyrighted registered name" or "registered copyright name". 

What you seem to be asking about is trademark infringement/domain name infringement.  Search the forum for "trademark infringement" to get a general sense of what's involved in infringement.  You may also be treading close to the legal aspects of web design related to such things as use of metatags, linking and framing.  I'm not up to speed in those areas, but have put in some links below which may provide some background and terms you can use to search further.

As for your example of use of the term "apple", no one has the right to monopolize language.  Generic terms cannot serve as trademarks when the generic term is actually the name for the good/service it's applied to.  (You can sell "Apple" brand computers, but not "Apple" brand apples.)  If someone has a website about picking, selling, or cooking apples, Apple computer has no grounds to complain of the use of the word in that context, since it is clearly NOT a trademark use of the term. 

That being said, if someone uses the word "apple" (or even otherwise legitimate phrases such as "picking apples" or "eating apples") on a website selling computer equipment in order to pull in people searching for Apple computers, that's another situation, which may or may not be a problem.

As noted, I'm not entirely up to speed on internet law, but perhaps someone else will jump in here.
Meanwhile, these articles might give you some background to take your search forward:

http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html
http://www.keytlaw.com/urls/urllaw.htm

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=124736
http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases-paidlistings.htm

[concerned001]

You reply with

'You may also be treading close to the legal aspects of web design related to such things as use of metatags, linking and framing.  I'm not up to speed in those areas, but have put in some links below which may provide some background and terms you can use to search further.'

I could be wrong but metatags, linking and framing have a lot to do with html coding.  They have fixed coding names.

this has nothing to do with domain names.

My question is can I use cocacola or ipad - these are examples only -  in html coding as for instance  cocacola.htm or ipad.htm on my site and whether or not they have any connection to what I am selling can either company suggest to me not use there name in my html coding.

thanks

[Kaitlin]

Point of clarification:  when you say html code, I presume you are referring to the part following the forward slash(es) in URL's for website pages that are written in html code?  (Or does the "html code" have two meanings, one being the code itself but another meaning just those characters used immediately preceding the .htm or .html in a URL?)

As mentioned, if your concern is trademark infringement, the basic principles of trademark law will apply.  To be more specific, the issue is going to largely come down to these questions:
1) is the way you use the famous mark in the url a trademark use of the term and, if so, is there a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source? or
2) is the use of the famous mark in the url in any way diluting or disparaging the famous mark?
Search the site for "trademark infringement" and/or "dilution" and "disparagement" to find discussions explaining how these principles play out.

As for any peculiar wrinkles that could arise from a concern over use of someone else's trademark in the URL of a web page -- as opposed to other uses, although you're not talking about a domain names or metatags, there could be parallels between how those are treated in the infringement and unfair trade contexts and and how URL's for internal pages of a website might be treated in the same contexts. 

It's been a number of years since I was active in any issues related to the web, though, so you'll have to look to others here to speak to the current state of the law on this. 

[concerned001]

Why are repliers to a simple question qualifying their answers with below statements.
 
"As noted, I'm not entirely up to speed on internet law, but perhaps someone else will jump in here."

"It's been a number of years since I was active in any issues related to the web, though, so you'll have to look to others here to speak to the current state of the law on this"

Click on view in your tool bar and down to page source for this page.  That's coding.  up at top it says.

<meta name="keywords" content="intellectual property forum, intellectual property, forum, intellectual property law, patent, trademark, copyright
" />
My question is, and I am getting some feeling about this, on my page by inserting for example   apple, ibm, nytimes somewhere in meta name keywords between quotes will be fine until owner of that tradename complains about it or do they have a right to complain about their trade name used in html coding .

this page url is
http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?action=post;topic=17095.0;num_replies=4

can a page in my sites subpage be

http://www.*********.com/cocacola.htm

where ********** is my domain and cocacola.htm  is a subpage.

and cocacola I am using as an example only.  I have no intentions of using it.

thanks.


   

[Zonath]

Let's try and make this pretty simple, then, and use as a starting point a quote from North American Medical Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, 522 F. 3d 1211 (CA5, 2008):

We conclude that the plain meaning of the
statutory language clearly indicates that Axiom’s use of NAM’s trademarks as
meta tags constitutes a “use in commerce . . . in connection with the sale . . . or
advertising of any goods” under the facts of this case.

Now, one of your proposals (if I understand correctly) is using a meta tag in order to manipulate the search results, which in the cited case, at least, was held to be a "use in commerce", and the question then would be whether the use could cause confusion in the marketplace, or else dilute a famous mark somehow.  You're also proposing to use the universal resource locator address of the web page to hopefully achieve the same result.  I do not believe that a court would find there to be any difference between your proposed use of a URL and the use of meta tags.

In addition, the court in Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (CA9, 1999)  found that such a use might cause 'initial interest confusion':

Nevertheless, West Coast's use of "moviebuff.com" in metatags will still result in what is known as initial interest confusion. Web surfers looking for Brookfield's "MovieBuff" products who are taken by a search engine to "westcoastvideo.com" will find a database similar enough to "MovieBuff" such that a sizeable number of consumers who were originally looking for Brookfield's product will simply decide to utilize West Coast's offerings instead. Although there is no source confusion in the sense that consumers know they are patronizing West Coast rather than Brookfield, there is nevertheless initial interest confusion in the sense that, by using "moviebuff.com" or "MovieBuff" to divert people looking for "MovieBuff" to its web site, West Coast improperly benefits from the goodwill that Brookfield developed in its mark.

And I have found allusion to cases in which use of meta tags has been held to constitute dilution, as well, although I haven't had the chance to dig through and find any especially-quotable cases.

The lowdown for you is that your use of a URL or meta tags which contain a famous mark could very well be trademark infringement.  And the basic rule is that you can be liable for damages for trademark infringement the instant that the infringement  happens, which means that Coca Cola or KFC or whoever's mark you used wouldn't even necessarily have to send a nice cease & desist letter (although they might) -- they could just hit you with a lawsuit that they'd have a decent chance of winning, and then you'd potentially be on the hook for quite a bit of money.

I hope this answers your question as thoroughly as you would like, with as little room for equivocation as you'd prefer.

[Kaitlin]

Thank you, Zonath. 

[MYK]

On the other hand, if you're using those trademarks to sell related goods or services (e.g., "speaker docks for the Apple iPod"), it might qualify as nominative use.  Be careful with that, though.

[Kaitlin]

Absolutely, MYK.
The OP was looking for a simple answer when there is none. 
Context is extremely important in trademark situations and even when all facts are known, it's usually a judgment call.

[concerned001]

Thanks Zonath,

I removed registered trade name from all <head> meta </head> names  and renamed an *.htm file to something else.

I feel so much better now.  And for those who might think I was using a word beginning with name of a color and next word being name of an animal found in a ring in Mexico or Spain on a Sunday.  No it was another trade name having nothing to do with an energy drink.   

I think those in charge should make you a senor member.

Thanks again.