BNA said:
The incontestable mark "Smart power" for electrical power circuits is a generic term in the semiconductor industry and unenforceable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds. Affirming a summary judgment for the defendant, the court is persuaded that the trademark owner failed to rebut overwhelming evidence that the industry uses the term to denote a type of technology, not goods associated with the trademark owner. The court also agrees that the trademark owner failed to rebut the presumptive prejudice for laches that resulted from its 11-year delay in bringing its infringement suit. "Nartron Corp. v. STMicroelectronics Inc. "
The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals wrote: "If a mark's primary significance is to describe a type of product rather than the producer, it is generic and is not a valid trademark."
Here's the decision's URL: http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02a0341p.06
Defendant in this case, the court said, "has only used the term "smart power" to refer generally to technology that combines power transistors and control circuitry on a single integrated circuit. ST alleges that since at least 1988, it has manufactured and marketed products that contain integrated circuits which combine power circuits and logic circuits."
Nartron shold have defended the use of its mark "Smart Power" more vigorously than it did and sooner than it did. A trademark owner must keep the market aware that a mark is evidence of source of goods or services, not a generic name for the type of goods or services involved.
Noel Humphreys
9:29:47 PM
|