The Differences Between Registered Trademarks and Common Law Trademarks

nat rosasco • January 9, 2020

 Clients often ask me whether it’s worth it to file for trademark registration. I tell them that registration is both a business and personal decision. If you plan on using your mark beyond your current zip code – which is often the case with e-commerce – then registration is a smart business decision. But even then I ask: how would you feel if someone else began using the same mark? Therein lays the personal choice. Business owners understandably become attached to their name and logo. Sometimes the added protection registration provides is just worth it for that personal association.



 But registration isn’t your only avenue to trademark protection. Like many other laws, you may have some trademark protection that naturally derives from “common law.” Common law trademarks don’t give you everything that registration offers but they do give you some rights, and those rights may be enough for you and your business. In this article, I’ll review some of the differences between registered trademarks and common law trademarks. Note that by “registration” I specifically am referencing national registration with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). States also often their own registration but I’m focusing here on the national state.


Geographic Area

One difference between registered and common law trademarks is their geographic area of protection. A registered trademark grants you priority to use your mark across the entire nation. In contrast, a common law trademark is limited to the area in which you use it. Say, for instance, you operate your business using a common law trademark at a single retail store in Chicago. If someone else later uses the same mark in Milwaukee, you likely would not be able to enforce your trademark rights against them. On the other hand, if you were using a registered trademark for your Chicago store then you’d have a better claim for infringement against your Milwaukee competitor.


Courts

Another major, yet often overlooked difference between common law and registered trademarks is where you can enforce your trademark rights against a potential infringer. Naturally, since registered trademarks grant you priority across the nation, you have the benefit of using the federal courts and law. When it comes to trademark law, the federal courts have a uniform set of laws to apply which generally results in more predictable decisions and remedies. Plus, federal law remedies broaden with worse cases of infringement, known as “counterfeiting.”


Common law trademark-owners must use state courts and laws. Unlike federal law, state court decisions vary according to the differences in their state laws. Looking back at my hypothetical of Chicago and Milwaukee, you’d likely have to sue your competitor in Wisconsin under Wisconsin law, even though your trademark exists under Illinois common law.

In addition, common law trademark-owners first have to establish that they have a common law trademark to sue for infringement. That’s a fact-intensive process in which you need to prove when you started using the mark, that you use the mark in association with providing certain goods or services and the area in which you’ve been using the mark. It provides an opportunity for a potential infringer to defeat your claim before it begins, and could also leave you with an unfavorable opinion that limits your trademark protection going forward. Registered trademark-owners don’t have that burden. In fact, the burden completely shifts to the defendant to show why the mark should not be afforded federal protection. Shifting the burden to your opponent is an incredible advantage in any litigation proceeding.


Clarity

Another understated benefit of a registered trademark is the registration process itself. Usually the first step in applying for a trademark is searching for other owners’ trademarks. The USPTO documents all trademarks online for you or your attorney to search to see if anyone else is using the same or similar mark. After you apply, an examining attorney with the USPTO reviews your application. Sometimes they’ll respond with a letter outlining some concerns that they want you to address. Their letters often don’t block your application but rather raise legitimate issues to which you can reply and solidify the basis for your trademark. Once the examining attorney passes the application, the USPTO publishes your mark for potential objections from the public. Once that period lapses with no objections, you’ll receive your trademark registration certificate knowing that the USPTO vetted your application. Your mark will then be added to the federal register which puts the public on notice of your registered mark. In a way, the registration process earns registered trademark-owners the presumption that their marks are legitimate should they need to enforce them in court.


Symbols

Both common law and registered trademark-owners can us certain symbols next to their trademarks (although none are required) but the symbols are different. The most commonly recognized symbol is the ‘®’ which only registered trademark-owners can use. Simply put, the ‘®’ symbol shows that you registered your mark with the USPTO. Common law trademark owners can use ‘TM’ or ‘SM’ which still tells the public that you consider your mark a trademark under common law but it doesn’t show that your mark is USTPO-registered. In any case, each of those symbols put the public on notice that your mark is an important piece of your brand and its association with your goods or services.

Common law provides business owners with some trademark protection naturally through use. For some businesses, it may be enough. For others – particularly for those who aspire to expand – federal trademark protection is the better option. Consider these differences and your personal connection with your mark when making that decision.

By nat rosasco February 25, 2021
As this relentlessly awful year mercifully draws to a close, a light at the end of our pandemic tunnel is rapidly approaching. COVID-19 vaccines are poised for approval, and it is expected that distribution will begin in earnest shortly. But no matter how much and how confidently the FDA and other health experts proclaim these vaccines to be safe and effective, there are large numbers of Americans who say they won’t get the shot when it becomes available. The most recent Gallup poll found that only 63 percent of Americans say they are willing to be inoculated against the disease. Many of those who don’t want to get vaccinated will soon find out that they work for an employer who feels differently. Those employers may also tell them that they either need to get the vaccine or need to find a new job. And, in most cases, employers may be well within their rights to terminate employees who refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Mandatory Vaccinations Are Not New Companies that have spent the better part of the year – and lots of money - trying to keep their workplaces COVID-free see the vaccine as the apex of those efforts. With a fully vaccinated workforce, business owners can operate without disruption and provide employees, customers, clients, and patients with confidence and peace of mind. But all of those benefits of the vaccine only accrue to fully vaccinated workforces. So, many companies may mandate that employees get their shot as a condition of continued employment. By doing so, they are following a legally sound path that predates the current pandemic. Well before anyone had heard of coronavirus, plenty of employers, primarily in the health care sector, required employees to get the flu vaccine and vaccinations against other infectious diseases. Most public school districts also require proof of vaccinations before a student can enroll and attend classes. Since most employees in Illinois work on an “at-will” basis, they can face termination for almost any reason not expressly prohibited by federal, state, or local laws. Generally, no law stands in the way of an employer requiring the COVID-19 vaccine for its workers. ADA and Religious Exceptions However, employers who make vaccines mandatory need to be mindful that employees with legitimate health or religious concerns about the vaccine may be protected from termination and other adverse employment actions if they refuse the shot. But these exceptions don’t necessarily apply just because someone doesn’t believe in vaccines generally (“anti-vaxers”) or thinks that forcing them to get vaccination is an infringement on their liberties. Employees who have a disability recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prevents them from taking the coronavirus vaccine cannot be forced to get the vaccine, so long as their exemption does not impose an “undue hardship” on the employer. Such disabilities in this context may include a compromised immune system or an allergy to an ingredient in the vaccine. While there has been no definitive guidance on the subject, one could credibly argue that an employee’s refusal to get vaccinated is an “undue hardship” if it places the health and safety of other employees and visitors at increase risk of infection. Even in such cases, however, an employer may need to make a “reasonable accommodation” for the employee, such as allowing them to work from home. Similarly, the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may protect a worker if their “sincerely-held religious beliefs” preclude them from getting a vaccination. Such beliefs do not include political or personal views. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate the legitimacy of their religious objections to the vaccine. More Than Legal Issues To Consider Even when an employer is within their legal rights to require employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine, other considerations may weigh against such a mandate. For example, they may need protection against an employee who has an adverse reaction, even if they signed a waiver upon receiving the shot. A vaccination requirement may also get an adverse reaction from employees generally as well as the general public if it seems heavy-handed and overreaching. Of course, those that decide against a mandate face risks if someone does contract the coronavirus in the workplace and sues. Please Contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky With All Of Your COVID-Related Employment Questions If you have questions or concerns about how to handle vaccinations or other employment issues related to COVID-19, please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for a consultation.
By nat rosasco January 11, 2021
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is back , offering a second round of loan forgiveness to new borrowers and qualified second-time PPP borrowers. The second round of PPP loans has earmarked up to $284 billion to support business owners' payroll costs and other eligible expenses through March 31, 2021. Loans will be available to first-time participants on Monday, January 11, and existing PPP participants on Wednesday, January 13. First Draw PPP Loan Eligibility Borrowers that did not participate in the first round are generally eligible for a First Draw PPP Loan if they were in operation on February 15, 2020, and fall into one of the following categories: Businesses with 500 or fewer employees that are eligible for other SBA 7(a) loans. Eligible self-employed individuals (including sole proprietors and independent contractors). Non-profit organizations, including churches. Accommodation and food services operations with no more than 500 employees per location. Sec. 501(c)(6) business leagues with no more than 300 employees that do not receive more than 15% of its income from lobbying. Qualifying news organizations with 500 or fewer employees per location. Second Draw PPP Loan Eligibility Existing PPP participants are generally eligible for a Second Draw PPP Loan if the borrower: Used or will have used its First Draw PPP Loan as authorized. Has no more than 300 employees. Can prove it has suffered at least a 25% reduction in gross income between the same quarters in 2019 and 2020. Our team is committed to monitoring new developments with the PPP and providing you with the information you need. It is essential that your small business consults with knowledgeable corporate attorneys , financial advisors, and accountants on your PPP eligibility and forgiveness applications. If you have any questions about the new eligibility requirements or any other issues involving the PPP, please feel free to call or email us.
By nat rosasco June 5, 2020
Many businesses that received Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) funds are coming to the end of their respective eight-week time periods (“Expenditure Period”) during which they must use the PPP funds to obtain forgiveness under the CARES Act. Unfortunately, many of these businesses have found it difficult to reopen and remain fully operational throughout the Expenditure Period and consequently to meet spending thresholds necessary to obtain full forgiveness. Luckily for these businesses, some much needed flexibility is on its way. Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act On June 5th, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (“PPPFA”) was signed into law. The PPPFA made the following changes relevant to PPP loan forgiveness: Extends the Expenditure Period from eight weeks to the earlier of twenty-four weeks from the date of the loan origination or December 31, 2020. Reduces the required payroll spending amount to a minimum of 60% on payroll instead of the current 75% minimum requirement. This would allow businesses to use the remaining 40% of the PPP funds on rent and other operational items as needed. Extends the deadline for workers to be able to be rehired to December 31, 2020 instead of the current cutoff of June 30, 2020. Extends the PPP loan to a five-year term instead of the current two-year term. As any amendments governing the use and repayment of PPP loans may be vital to a small business’ ability to continue to operate and successfully plan for the future, our team will continue to keep you up to date on the on-going developments. As always, it is important to consult with informed attorneys, financial advisors, bankers and accountants on how best to use your PPP funds. Should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to call or email us.
Show More