Filter

Open

Naked Licensing in the United States

14

OCT

2022

Introduction

The term license is derived from the Latin word “license” which means to allow, “license” and means permission. The emergence of the licensing trademark in the market has provided a wide business cycle to authorized users of the brand name. Merely receiving the royalties in the contract without a clause as to quality control would lead the license to be naked licensing. It has been held that without the quality control require unscrupulous licensors or licensees could change the product quality advantage of unwary consumers. A trademark is a medium that determines the brand name, creates trust in the mind of the consumer as the quality and standard of goods and services. under the Trade Mark Act, the registration of registered users is subject to the exercise of proper control by the registered proprietor over the mark used by the registered user. The licensing agreement is a legal document that indicates the future use of the trademark after licensing agreement.

A trademark is understood to have independent value beyond identifying and distinguishing the goods and services of the trademark proprietor. The trademark becomes valuable property for instance the Apple trademark itself can be used as the property to get attract consumers.

Under the U.S. Trademark law, a trademark license may be express or implied. A written agreement is created as a rebuttable supposition of a valid license. The absence of a written agreement is conclusive of naked licencing or that a mark has become abandoned. The trademark owner can authorize the right to use his trademark through licensing agreement. However, failures to adequate control over the quality of products manufactured or services offered by a licensee may be considered as a naked license. Hence, the trademark is deceptive to the consumer. Uncontrolled licensing is not permitted to get royalties and deceive the public. For instance, some products will harm the consumers by consuming or using with belief that it is brand and under well-known trademark. the consumer does not general knowledge to know that a particular trade proprietor has licensed his/her trademark right to licensee.

The trademark licensor has an affirmative obligation under the Lanham Act and case law to take reasonable steps to ensure that the items produced or services provided under a licence agreement satisfy the licensor’s quality requirement. Inadequate quality control might lead to a judicial decision of "abandonment" of a trademark, as a result of the trademark owner's act or omission, which causes the brand to lose its importance as a source of origin. Uncontrolled licensing or naked licensing could cause the trademark to lose significance as a symbol of quality and an indication of origin.

From a strictly legal standpoint, trademark rights can be lost, and have been, due to a lack of proper quality control. It would be unwise to put such valuable marks in danger. Furthermore, poor or absent quality control may result in other legal consequences, such as a finding that the licence is invalid or that there has been a gap in the continuous use of the mark, which could result in the loss of priority rights over another or the inability to maintain registration rights.

In the case of Taco Cabana International v. Two Pesos, Inc., a restaurant owned by two brothers was divided into separate locations and each used the trade dress of the prior location. This arrangement was challenged as a naked license. The court observed “both parties wag engaged in a close working relationship and rightly depend on each party's understanding with standard and measures to ensure reliable quality. No actual deterioration in the quality standards is established, there is no abandonment.

Naked licensing practice is not allowed in the U.S. The court has played a key role to prevent naked licensing by the way of cancellation of instance in case of Baracamerica International USA Trust V. Tyfeild Imports, Inc. The court cancelled the Barcamerica trademark, on the ground of naked licensing and lied down that: “it necessary to bear in mind that ‘ quality control’ does not mean that the licensed products must be of “ high quality” but it should have the equal quality of the product of the trademark owner. The core issue is that the customers have right to presume that the nature and quality of product and service provided in the market under the brand name licensed will possess the equal qualities.”

The distinctive feature of the trademark is to ensure the consumer that the product belongs to a particular brand. The customer develops confidence in the quality of the products, drugs provided and services offered in the market. It will protect the consumer from substandard goods and defective goods.

Conclusion

Trademark licensing is an authorization by the registered proprietor of a trademark granting another person the right to exploit his trademark under stipulated terms and conditions. Trademark licensing has assumed a reputation as an indispensable means of the business organisation on both national and international levels. Licensing is an easy way for the trademark owner to expand his business internationally within a short period. The licensor endures owning the mark and the use of it by the licensee in accustom to the profit of the licensor. A trademark designates the basis or source of a product or service and hence allows customers to make generalizations concerning their quality. When the License agreement does not include quality control over the licensee it is considered as “naked licensing. The trademark proprietor has to ensure the consistency of quality in the good or service, failure to meet terms and conditions s/he shall forfeit the trademark. Failure to exercise control by the licensor over the quality of the goods manufactured, and service provided by the licensee affects the consumer’s right.

About the Firm

Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Address E-13, UPSIDC, Site-IV, Behind-Grand Venice, Kasna Road, Greater Noida - 201310, UP, National Capital Region, India.
Tel 91-120-4296878, 91-120-4909201, 91-120-4516201
Fax 91-120-4516201
Email info@khuranaandkhurana.com
Link www.khuranaandkhurana.com

Related Articles

22
NOV
2022
An Overview Of Arbitrability Of Intellectual Property Disputes
22
NOV
2022
INTRODUCTION The number of patents, trademarks and domain name registrations has increased exponent...

Read More

22
NOV
2022
MakeMyTrip Pvt. Ltd. v. Booking.com & ors. - Trademark Infringement by a Third Party Using Google Ad Words
22
NOV
2022
Introduction The internet or the cyberspace has had a significant impact on our personal and social...

Read More

04
NOV
2022
Protection of Copyrights in Indonesia
04
NOV
2022
Copyright law in Indonesia is a legal framework that encourages entrepreneurs to run their business ...

Read More

08
OCT
2022
Trademark Licensing in Malaysia
08
OCT
2022
Introduction Licensing is a business arrangement commonly regarded as an alternative to franchising...

Read More

08
OCT
2022
Protection of Geographical Indications in the United States
08
OCT
2022
The use of GIs has become a contentious international trade issue, particularly for U.S. wine, chees...

Read More

14
SEP
2022
Vietnam Joins WIPO Copyright Treaty
14
SEP
2022
Copyright is an important part of intellectual property rights. Copyright protection plays a cruc...

Read More

08
SEP
2022
Compulsory Licensing in Indonesia
08
SEP
2022
Introduction Hepatitis C is one of viral diseases that requires special medication. As a viral dise...

Read More

08
SEP
2022
Interplay Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law in the USA
08
SEP
2022
The relationship between intellectual property (IP) and disciplines regulating competition has attra...

Read More

15
AUG
2022
Patentability Search of Plants
15
AUG
2022
A patent search or patentability search is also known as a prior art search or a novelty search. Thi...

Read More

15
AUG
2022
Patent Laws of Malaysia
15
AUG
2022
Malaysia is a common law country and is governed by the doctrine of judicial precedent (stare decisi...

Read More

03
AUG
2022
Single Colour Trademarks - A Prevailing Conundrum
03
AUG
2022
There was a strong need to compete in the business sector due to expanding industrialization. ...

Read More

20
JUL
2022
Copyright Authorship to Artificial Intelligence
20
JUL
2022
Copyright is an exclusive right granted to the author of an original work. It is a protection provid...

Read More

20
JUL
2022
Removal of Unified GCC Patent System
20
JUL
2022
The Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf,...

Read More

15
JUL
2022
Compulsory Licensing For Expensive Medicines 
15
JUL
2022
The Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) has released a...

Read More

17
JUN
2022
Intellectual Property Risks with Respect to Digital Technology
17
JUN
2022
Introduction Throughout the life of an IP right, intellectual property risk management is the...

Read More

09
JUN
2022
All Comic Cons Titles Are Not Generic in Nature!!
09
JUN
2022
The case involves Dan Farr Production (Defendants) usage of the term “Salt Lake Comic Con&r...

Read More

27
MAY
2022
Patent of Addition under Indian Patents Act, 1970
27
MAY
2022
The possibility of improving or modifying an invention remains open once an invention has been devel...

Read More

18
MAY
2022
Frappuccino: Made By Starbucks and Used ONLY By Starbucks
18
MAY
2022
Introduction Who doesn’t like to indulge in the sweet, creamy and chilled Starbucks FRAPPUCCI...

Read More

09
MAY
2022
Trade Mark Dilution: A Case to be Looked Upon
09
MAY
2022
Adidas is a leading manufacturer of athletic apparel and footwear. Skechers is one of the largest f...

Read More

26
APR
2022
IP Protection in The Metaverse
26
APR
2022
Introduction Metaverse is a virtual reality world in which people are supposed to socialize, pla...

Read More

13
APR
2022
Fanfiction, Fan-Culture , Fan Art, and Copyright Law
13
APR
2022
Fanfiction, Fan-Culture, Fan art ,And Copyright Law In popular culture, fans take up a space of sign...

Read More

06
APR
2022
Groundless Threats for Patent Infringement: Analysing S.106 of Patents Act,1970
06
APR
2022
INTRODUCTION A groundless threat is one when a party threatens another party with legal proceedings...

Read More

11
MAR
2022
Identical Trademarks: A dilemma of Textual interpretation v. Contextual interpretation of a Statute
11
MAR
2022
Introduction In the case of Renaissance Hotel Holdings INC Vs B Vijaya Sai (2022), an appeal was re...

Read More

03
MAR
2022
Indian Advent in Any Types of Arbitration of IP Dispute - The Need to Clear the Judicial Enigma
03
MAR
2022
The Indian advent in any types of arbitration of IP dispute judiciary has been active and diligent i...

Read More

11
FEB
2022
DRS Logistics Vs Google: Liability for Using Third Party Trademarks as Keywords
11
FEB
2022
INTRODUCTION With advancements in technology and the introduction of the Internet, our personal ...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4