Tea Rose – Rectanus doctrine
Template:Short description The Tea Rose-Rectanus doctrine or remote, good-faith user doctrine[1] is a common law rule of United States trademark law that determines the geographic scope of rights. The doctrine allows a junior user of a mark that is geographically remote from the senior user of the mark to establish priority over a senior user's claim to the mark in the junior user's area.[2] The constructive use and notice sections of the Lanham Act limited the applicability of this doctrine.[3]
Overview
The doctrine is named for two early twentieth-century United States Supreme Court cases, Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf,[4] (the "Tea Rose" case), and United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co..[5]
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc.,[6] described the rule as follows:
For this doctrine to apply, the junior user must use the mark in good faith outside of the area of the senior user. The Eighth Circuit applies a four factor test to determine the area where the senior user's mark is protected.[7] A junior user may no longer qualify as a good-faith, remote user if the junior user had knowledge of the senior user's mark.
Modern applicability
The remote, good faith user doctrine only applies where the senior user is relying upon common law trademark rights or has a federal registration that post-dates the junior user's first use. A federal registration may allow the senior user to enforce his or her rights anywhere in the U.S., regardless of actual use in any particular location within the country.[3] The principle underlying this doctrine has been codified as part of the Lanham Act, which permits Concurrent use registration where both parties had used the mark in good faith before either party had filed for a federal registration.
References
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 15 Template:Delink 920] (8th Cir. 1926).Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
- ↑ a b Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 267 Template:Delink 358] (2nd Cir. 1959).Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
- ↑ Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U.S. 403 (1916).
- ↑ United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90 (1918).
- ↑ Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 391 Template:Delink 1088], 1097 (9th Cir. 2004).Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". Template:Usgovpd
- ↑ Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 380 Template:Delink 923], 929 (8th Cir. 1967) ("In determining this issue the trial court should weigh all the factors including plaintiff's dollar value of sales at the time defendants entered the market, number of customers compared to the population of the state, relative and potential growth of sales, and length of time since significant sales.").Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".