100%(6)6 out of 6 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 out of 2 pages.
11.The Stop & Shop Supermarket and Big Y Foods are supermarkets offering the same services and competing for the same customers. In an advertisement introducing its new, easy-to-use scan saver cards, Stop & Shop Supermarket used the slogan, “It’s That Simple.” The supermarket used the slogan in radio, television, and print advertisements. The service mark was licensed to the supermarket by plaintiff Fullerton, who owns the right to the service mark. After Stop & Shop started using the slogan, Big Y Foods began to use a similar slogan, “We Make Life Simple.” Both service marks are always accompanied by the name of the store. Fullerton and Stop & Shop Supermarket brought an action alleging infringement of the service mark. Do you think that the court granted the injunction? Why or why not? [ The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company and Fullerton Corp. v. Big Y Foods Inc., 943 F. Supp. 120 (1996).]One of the key deciding factors, in this case, was the degree of “strength” of the slogans in question, meaning how closely they or their wordings were identified with any particular brand in consumers’ minds. Many companies and services have used the word “simple” in their advertising over the years, so it’s almost impossible to claim it for exclusive use. Also, the court found that the first chain had only been using the word “simple” in its slogan for a week when the other company began using it, too. The court concluded that the word was not closely identified with the first company and denied its request for an injunction.14.Nike and Michael Jordan created the Air Jordan line in the 1980s. Jordan filed suit against a Chinese sportswear company, Qiaodan Sports, in China. Jordan is known in China as Qiaodan, and Qiaodan Sports uses a logo of a silhouette of a tall man holding a basketball, along with the number 23. The company registered “Qiaodan” as a trademark in China. Qiaodan also filed applications for trademarks on Jordan’s sons’ names. According to the complaint, Qiaodan had sales of approximately $450 million per year. Do you think Jordan will be successful in his suit against Qiaodan?Personally, I think Jordan will be successful in his suit against Qiaodan. The trademark of his name's translation in Chinese characters infringed on his right to own his name and violated the country's trademark law. In fact, this is called as a landmark decision that lays out ground rules for protecting personal names in trademark cases.