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
© 2024 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 All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTik Tok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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