What Is the Difference Between a State and Federal Trademark?
An individual or business must always remember that the risks associated with not obtaining trademarks at the onset of launching their company or brands can potentially be detrimental to its business.
March 15, 2019 at 02:30 PM
6 minute read
Once a person or business starts using a mark in commerce, they technically have what is called a common law trademark; the protection afforded to this right is extremely limited. Hence, a common law trademark is only enforceable in the geographic area where the mark is used. In most instances, it is hard to enforce common law rights because it is hard to show when use of the mark began. Therefore, it is important for owners of marks to understand the importance of obtaining registered trademark(s) for their brand(s). They must decide whether they need to obtain a state or federal trademark registration. In this article, I will discuss the difference between these two and what can happen if a trademark registration is not obtained.
In general, state trademarks are quick and easy to obtain, while federal trademarks are more costly and complex. Nevertheless, federal trademarks offer way more protection than do state trademarks. State trademarks protect a mark only in the registered state(s), meanwhile a federal trademark protects the mark(s) nationwide and potentially can be used to obtain international trademarks through the WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization. Furthermore, the owner of a state trademark registration cannot use the registered symbol ® next to its mark to put others on notice. The registrant can only put either a TM for a trademark or SM for a service mark next to its mark. Hence, when a federal registration is pending, the applicant can put either one of these symbols next to its mark and once the federal trademark obtains registration, the applicant can put the registered symbol ® next to it.
There are several other benefits of obtaining a federal trademark: You can register your trademark with Amazon or U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to prevent infringing products from being imported or sold; the registration creates a public record of use of your mark, which may help deter infringers; and you can file a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court. In federal court, trademark owners of federally registered trademarks can sue for statutory damages, recover profits, receive triple damages for willful infringement and get infringing businesses to pay their legal fees, which is much harder for common law trademark owners to obtain. Common law trademarks aren't governed by statute as federal registered trademarks are; state law governs them. Hence, none of the foregoing benefits apply to state or common law trademarks. Therefore, obtaining a federal trademark is usually the better choice.
If an individual or business chooses not to trademark their brand name or logo, they may fall upon several other pitfalls. Usually from the day a person is born they are given a name that is used for identity purposes, in order to differentiate and recognize that specific individual. Similarly, brands and companies need to be named in a fashion that will work as an identity marker for their specific goods and/or services. Unlike people's names, business brands usually cannot legally co-exist under the same or similar name if they are within the same or similar industry. Therefore, obtaining a trademark early on in a business venture is ideal because it can save the entrepreneur a lot of money, headaches and time.
One might ask how can a trademark save money for a business? Well the answer is very simple: If you start using a brand name or logo for your goods and/or services and have not conducted a trademark search and/or filed to register your mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), you're taking a huge risk. This risk includes (1) someone else is using the same or similar name, which is trademarked, within the same industry and therefore your mark would be denied registration by the USPTO if or when you apply; (2) someone else is using the same or similar name within the same industry and therefore, some or all of your marketing efforts will be directed towards the other person's brand/company; (3) someone else is using the same or similar name, which is trademarked, within the same industry and therefore, you will need to re-brand in the future if the other company finds out that you are using a similar mark; (4) someone else is using the same or similar name, which is trademarked, within the same industry and therefore they can sue you for damages; or (5) someone else starts using a similar brand name after you start using yours and files to register their mark with the USPTO before you do and, as a result, most likely you will need to file an opposition with the USPTO to get rid of this pending or registered mark. This process is costly and can take a lot of time. Hence, if you don't do your due diligence and file to register your mark with the USPTO, there is a high chance one of the foregoing dilemmas will arise and you will be forced to spend more money than what you otherwise would have spent if you filed to register your mark early on in your business venture.
Also, one must always remember that time is money. It takes about eight months to obtain a federal trademark if no issues arise during the trademarking process. However, this time period may be extended drastically if the examining attorney finds an issue with your application or another trademark owner opposes your mark from being registered. Thus, any business owner can understand that if they file for a mark early on and something goes wrong, the loss will not be as grave to their company as if something was to go wrong years down the line when they have expended large amounts of revenue into growing their brand. Thus, waiting to file for a trademark after the brand has been established is a bad idea.
In conclusion, an individual or business must always remember that the risks associated with not obtaining trademarks at the onset of launching their company or brands can potentially be detrimental to its business.
Biana Borukhovich is the founder of The Law Office of Biana Borukhovich.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250