(Doesn’t every town have one?) The court even made reference to an article in a local newspaper that spoke of automiles in a general sense. In the automile case, the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals similarly noted that “automiles” exist in assorted locations throughout the U.S. Implicitly, the court concluded that if it rides like a duck (tour) and quacks like a duck (tour), it is a duck (tour), it is generic, and the name cannot be trademarked. and world, most of which refer to themselves as duck tours. Moreover, the First Circuit found that there are more than 36 such tours around the U.S. They are the best way to see Beantown.) In support of its ruling, the First Circuit noted that the Boston Globe had published articles making reference to duck tours generically, without any apparent objection by the Boston Duck Tours group. 2008), the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the term “duck tours” represented a generic name that “refer to amphibious, sightseeing tours.” (If you have occasion to visit Boston in the summer months, do treat yourself to a duck tour. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. In support of its ruling, the court relied upon a parallel and interesting case out of Boston. Whether the term “automile” tends to confuse or not, the court of appeals determined that the term was generic and therefore simply not subject to trademark protection. The Court of Appeals wasn’t confused and wasn’t persuaded by the Bedford dealers’ arguments the court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the North Olmsted defendants. ![]() They demanded the dealers in North Olmsted cease using the term “automile” on the grounds that this use would confuse consumers in the northeastern Ohio automobile market, leading them to believe that “there an identity, affiliation, or relationship between” the Bedford dealers and the North Olmsted dealers. The Bedford car dealers claimed it was they who coined the term “automile” in the mid-fifties, and registered it as a trade name with the state of Ohio in 1987. March 8, 2012), that the relatively common term “automile” is generic and not entitled to trademark protection.Īt issue in the case was whether a car distribution center in North Olmsted, Ohio, a southwest suburb of Cleveland, could name itself the “North Olmsted AutoMile.” When the North Olmsted AutoMile advertisements began to be aired in 2008, car dealers from Bedford, Ohio, a neighboring Cleveland suburb approximately 22 miles east of North Olmsted, became road enraged. ![]() Mercedes Benz of North Olmsted, 2012-Ohio-927, 2012 WL 760626 (Cuyahoga App. In a “where the rubber hits the road decision,” the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Court of Appeals ruled recently in the case of Bedford Auto Dealers Ass’n v. Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedInįor those businesses that might be tempted to enjoin another’s use of a common name, be advised: you might be inviting unexpected grief.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |