tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post3324152950624570149..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: unregistrable means unprotectable by sec. 43 as wellUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-32008333055063588852014-06-19T12:21:46.896-04:002014-06-19T12:21:46.896-04:00In holding that a mark that cannot be registered u...In holding that a mark that cannot be registered under the Lanham Act equates with a mark that is valid and protectable under federal law, the NJ District Court misread the CAFC’s decision. In <i>In re City of Houston</i>, 731 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit said:<br /><br />We note that Houston has other means to prevent "pirates and cheats" from using its city seal to deceive the public. Presumably the city of Houston could pass an ordinance prohibiting such activity. <b>Other legal protections under the Lanham Act may exist as well.</b> See 15 U.S.C. § 1125 [emphasis added].<br /><br />IMHO, the fact that a mark cannot be registered does not mean it is not entitled to common law protection (including under federal common law).<br /><br />Mitch Stabbe<br />Edwards Wildman Palmer<br />Washington, DC<br />Mitch Stabbehttp://www.edwardswildman.com/mstabbe/noreply@blogger.com