Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:29:26.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Online Brands and Trademark Conflicts: A Hegelian Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Richard A. Spinello
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The Internet presents opportunities for corporations to efficiently build their brands online and to enhance their global reach. But there are threats as well as opportunities, since anti-branding and free-riding activities are easier in cyberspace. One such threat is the unauthorized incorporation of a trademark into a domain name. This can lead to trademark dilution and cause consumer confusion. But some users claim a right to use these trademarks for the purpose of parody or criticism. Underlying these trademark conflicts is the familiar tension between property rights and free speech rights. While some trademark scholars are reluctant to consider a trademark as property, we find strong support for the property paradigm in Hegel’s philosophy. Assuming that a trademark is an earned property right, we propose that a trademark owner should be allowed to control the permutations of its trademark incorporated into domain names unless a reasonable person would not confuse that domain name with the company’s mark. But we also conclude that there must be latitude to employ a domain name for negative editorial comment, so long as the source and purpose of that domain name is plainly apparent.

Type
Special Forum Marketing and Technology
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 343 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaker, D. 1996. Building Strong Brands (New York: Free Press).Google Scholar
Angwin, J. 2001. “Are Domain Panels the Hanging Judges of Cyberspace Court,” The Wall Street Journal (August 20): B1.Google Scholar
Appleman, H. 2001. “I Scream, You Scream: Consumers Vent over the Net,” The New York Times (March 4): E13.Google Scholar
Austen, I. 1999. “But First, Another Word from our Sponsor: What Children Can’t Escape on the Web is Advertising,” The New York Times (February 18): E1, E8.Google Scholar
Backman, J. 1968. “The Role of Trademarks in our Competitive Economy,” Trademark Report 58: 219.Google Scholar
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp v. Faber. 1998. 29 F. Supp. 2d [C.D. Cal].Google Scholar
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Smartsoft. 2001. WIPO Case No. D2001-1792.Google Scholar
Cabell, D. 2000. “Domain Names: World Standard Set for Key Internet Disputes,” Dispute Resolution Magazine 6(1): 12; available at http://www.mamatech.com/pub.htm.Google Scholar
Coca-Cola v. Alma-Leo, U.S.A., Inc. 1989. 719 F. Supp. 725 [N.D. Ill.].Google Scholar
Coombe, R. J., and Herman, A.. 2001. “Culture Wars on the Net: Trademarks, Consumer Politics, and Corporate Accountability on the World Wide Web,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 98: 1.Google Scholar
Donahue, R. 2002. “Beyond.Com: What Risk Does the Explosive Growth of Top Level Domains Pose to Your Trademark: Can You Get Any Relief?” 4 Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 59.Google Scholar
Dreyfuss, R. 1990. “Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation,” 65 Notre Dame Law Review 397.Google Scholar
Economist, The. 2001. “Who’s Wearing the Trousers,” The Economist (September 8): 26–28.Google Scholar
Federal Trademark Dilution Act. 1996. Pub. L. No. 104–98. Codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §1127 (2001).Google Scholar
Frank, Thomas. 1943. Eastern Wine Corp. v. Winslow-Warren, Ltd. 1943. 137 F. 2d 958 [2d Cir].Google Scholar
Frankfurter, Felix. 1942. Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co. 316 U.S. 205.Google Scholar
Galbraith, C. 2000. “Electronic Billboards Along the Information Superhighway: Liability Under the Lanham Act for Using Trademarks to Key Internet Banner Ads,” 41 Boston College Law Review 847.Google Scholar
Goldstein, A. 2002. “ICANNSucks.biz (And Why You Can’t Say That): How Fair Use of Trademarks in Domain Names is Being Restrained,” 12 Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal 1151.Google Scholar
Hart, S., and Murphy, J.. 1998. Brands: The New Wealth Creators (New York: New York University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1948 (1800). Early Theological Writings, trans. Knox, T. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1952 (1821). Philosophy of Right, trans. Knox, T. (London: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1975 (1803). Natural Law, trans. Knox, T. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).Google Scholar
Hughes, J. 1997. “The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,” in Intellectual Property, ed. Moore, A. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield), 107–77.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. 1999. “‘Recoding’ Intellectual Property and Overlooked Audience Interests,” 77 Texas Law Review 923.Google Scholar
Klein, N. 2000. No Logo (London: Flamingo).Google Scholar
Kotler, P. 1980. Marketing Management, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
Kratzke, W. 1991. “Normative Economic Analysis of Trademark Law,” 21 Memphis State University Law Review 199.Google Scholar
Bean, L. L. Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc. 1989. 811 F. 2d 26 [1st Cir.].Google Scholar
Landes, M., and Posner, R.. 1988. “The Economics of Trademark Law,” Trademark Report 78: 267.Google Scholar
Landes, M., and Posner, R.. 2003. “Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,” 70 University of Chicago Law Review 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanham Act. 1946. 15 U.S.C. 55 1057–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemley, M. 1999. “The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense,” 108 Yale Law Journal 1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litman, J. 1999. “Breakfast with Batman: The Public Interest in the Advertising Age,” 108 Yale Law Journal 1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litman, J. 2000. “The DNS Wars: Trademarks and the Internet Domain Name System,” 4 Journal of Small & Emerging Business Law 149.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1952 (1690). The Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Lubochinski, E. 2003. “Hegel’s Secret: Personality and the Housemark Cases,” 52 Emory Law Journal 489.Google Scholar
Magliocca, G. 2001. “One and Inseparable: Dilution and Infringement in Trademark Law,” 85 Minnesota Law Review 949.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. T. 1996 Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 3rd ed. (New York: West Publishing).Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. T. 1998. Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 4th ed. (New York: West Publishing).Google Scholar
Merges, R., Mennell, P., and Lemley, M.. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights in the New Technological Age, 2nd ed. (New York: Aspen Publishers).Google Scholar
Moore, E. S. 2004. “Children and the Changing World of Advertising,” Journal of Business Ethics 52: 161–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortellito v. Nina of California, Inc. 1972. 335 F. Supp 1288 [S.D. N.Y.].Google Scholar
Mueller, M. 2002. “Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes Under ICANN’s UDRP” (June 24); available at: http://dcc.syr.edu/markle/markle-report-final.pdf.Google Scholar
Muniz, A. M., and O’Guinn, T.. 2001. “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (March): 4–31.Google Scholar
Nunziato, D. 2003. “Freedom of Expression, Democratic Norms, and Internet Governance,” 52 Emory Law Journal 187.Google Scholar
Owens, R. 2003. “Domain-Name Dispute Resolution after Sallen v. Corinthians,” 18 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 257.Google Scholar
Pattishall, B. 1952. “Trademarks and Monopoly Phobia,” 42 Trademark Rep. 588.Google Scholar
Pereira, J. 2004. “Junk-Food Games,” The Wall Street Journal (May 3): B1, B4.Google Scholar
PETA v. Doughney. 2001. 263 F. 3d [4th Cir.].Google Scholar
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. 1995. 514 U.S. 159.Google Scholar
Radin, M. J. 1982. “Property and Personhood,” 34 Stanford Law Journal 957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. 1914. “Goodwill, Trademarks, and Unfair Trading,” quoted in McCarthy 1996.Google Scholar
Sallen v. Corinthians. 2001. 273 F. 3d 14. [1st Cir.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacht, R. 1971. Alienation (New York: Doubleday).Google Scholar
Schane, S. 1987. “The Corporation is a Person: The Language of Legal Fiction,” 61 Tulane Law Review 563.Google Scholar
Schechter, F. 1927. “The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection,” 40 Harvard Law Review 813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senate Report. 1946. No. 79–1333. Testimony on the Lanham Act.Google Scholar
Shields v. Zuccarini. 2001. 254 F. 3d 476 [3rd Cir.].Google Scholar
Spinello, R. 2002. “The Use and Abuse of Metatags,” Ethics and Information Technology 4(1): 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporty’s Farm v. Sportsman’s Mkt. 2000. 202 F. 3d 489 [2d Cir.].Google Scholar
Stillman, P. G. 1991. “Property, Contract, and Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” in Hegel and Legal Theory, ed. Cornell, D., Rosenfeld, M., and Carlson, D. (New York: Routledge), 205–27.Google Scholar
Trade-Mark Cases. 1879. 100 U.S. 82.Google Scholar
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy [UDRP]. 1999. Available online at ICANN’s website, http://www.icann.org.Google Scholar
Virtual Works, Inc., v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 2001. 238 F. 3d 264 [4th Cir.].Google Scholar
Volswagenwerk v. Rickard. 1974. 492 F.2d 474 [5th Cir.].Google Scholar
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Walsucks. 2000. WIPO Case No. D2000-0477.Google Scholar
Wilkins, M. 1992. “The Neglected Intangible Asset: The Influence of the Trade Mark on the Rise of the Modern Corporation,” Business History 34(1): 66–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winner, E. 1981. “Right of Identity: Right of Publicity and Protection for a Trademark’s ‘Persona,’” 71 Trademark Rep. 193.Google Scholar