• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Trade Mark Cluttering, Messy Policy

June 1, 2012 by Nora Sleeth (IPilogue Editor)

A recent report by the UK Intellectual Property Office [IPO] draws attention to trade mark cluttering. Trade mark cluttering occurs “where firms hold trade marks that are overly broad or unused raising search costs for later applicants.”

Distinctiveness is the key principle underlying trade mark law and policy. Trade marks help customers distinguish particular wares and services as well as identify their source. Simultaneously, trade mark owners are encouraged to invest their efforts in maintaining a reputation through product quality. Trade mark cluttering works against this notion of distinctiveness as trademark registers become full of marks that are unused. As a result, it becomes more costly for owners to search through existing marks and successfully register a distinctive mark.

The IPO report characterizes trade mark cluttering as a systemic problem since “existing levels of cluttering lead later applicants to adopt application strategies that further contribute to the problem.” Firms submit numerous simultaneous applications for a mark to ensure that it will be registered despite the fact that only one or few of these marks will actually be used by the trade mark owner. To achieve this blanket registration, firms involve a number of different strategies. For example, firms may apply for marks which they do not necessarily have any intent to use either to prevent others from using the mark or any similar mark or as insurance in case they later decide to use any of the marks.

The result of these blanket registration strategies is the unavailability of distinctive names for future applicants. Applicants are then forced to employ the same strategies in order to identify a unique mark that can be registered. The report also highlights the fact that marks that are at least somewhat descriptive in nature create more problems when trademark cluttering occurs. An applicant who wishes to use a similarly descriptive mark may find that all potential options have already be registered through the previously mentioned strategies.

As is emphasized by the report, it is essential to weigh the cost of trade mark cluttering against the cost of directly addressing the problem and cleansing the register. While application fees are intended to discourage the filing of multiple clustered applications, a number of other methods of combating trademark cluttering are outlined. This includes renewal requirements, cancellation of cluttered marks and opposition by trade mark offices. Perhaps more effective is a use requirement that would allow subsequent applicants to challenge a mark that is not being used. Additionally, clustered marks could be licensed or transferred to future applicants.

While the costs of implementing any of these solutions should be weighed against the existing costs to applicants dealing with cluttering, it is also important to weigh all costs against the essential principals of trade mark policy. Trade mark cluttering results in the existence of a plethora of marks that do not distinguish source or identify any particular wares or services. Instead, these marks work against the requisite distinctiveness of trade mark law by impeding applicants in their search for a unique and registrable mark. While cost considerations are important, trade mark policy would benefit from an approach that is always mindful of the underlying principles of trade mark law.

Nora Sleeth is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Posted in Trademarks

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Breakthrough: Canadian Scientists Discover Old Drug May Kill Cancer Stem Cells | More Than a “Bit” of Win for Australian ISP »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Law, Culture, Critique
  • EU Moving Toward New Trade-Mark Regime
  • A Cautionary Kudos: Canada Moves Up on USTR IP Watch List
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (159)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (16)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (56)
  • events (89)
  • Fashion Industry (23)
  • Feature Post (207)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1245)
    • Copyright (619)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (80)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (158)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (16)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (105)
      • Originality (34)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (38)
    • Patents (382)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (76)
    • Trademarks (245)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (179)
    • Canada (82)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (75)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (86)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (65)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (35)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (5)
  • WIPO (18)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736