Readers can focus on history and concepts while reading the main text, allowing them to bring understandings derived there to bear on the cases found in this analytic text. The approach offers relief from information overload and allows time and space to «shift gears» between concepts and cases. To aid understanding and learning, the authors provide focused interpretations and analysis throughout.
The coverage allows these books to serve as an excellent resource for undergraduates studying interactive media, as well as being a primer for first year IP law students, a handbook for entrepreneurs, a guidebook for general lawyers to assist in referrals, and an interesting read for those simply curious about the field.
The books are supplemented by freeforafee.com, a blog providing textual updates, online links to bibliographic materials, and extensive resource aggregation. Learning objectives for each chapter and a glossary of key terms are provided within the texts.
Chapter Five: Trademark Cases
| 45 →
Traditional Media Trademark Cases with New Media Implications
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics, Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961).
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics presented a multi-factor test for establishing the “likelihood of confusion” standard in trademark confusion cases.
Polaroid held various US trademarks related to the term “Polaroid” dating back as far as 1936. Polaroid had become a well-known name for sheet polarizing material, products made from such material, optical desk lamps, and stereoscopic viewers well before Polarad was organized in 1944. Polarad was primarily in the business of microwave generating, receiving, and measuring devices, and television studio equipment. Polaroid brought suit in 1956, alleging that the use of the name Polarad infringed Polaroid’s trademark rights and constituted unfair competition. In the case, a well-known judge, Judge Henry J. Friendly, stated a non-exclusive multi-factor test for determining whether there is a “likelihood of confusion” when analyzing trademark infringement: (1) the strength of the mark, (2) the similarity of the two marks, (3) the proximity of the products, (4) actual confusion, (5) the likelihood of plaintiff’s bridging the gap, (6) defendant’s good faith in adopting its mark, (7) the quality of defendant’s products, and (8) the sophistication of ← 45 | 46 → the consumer. The Court ultimately found for Polarad, because it concluded that Polaroid had unreasonably delayed filing its suit for approximately ten years.
Big O Tire Dealers, Inc....
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.