What is trademark infringement?
Trademark infringement occurs when a business uses the same or similar name in commerce in a way that may lead to confusion with the trademark owner’s service/product. Trademark infringement is based on this element of “confusion” that is a function of the mark’s meaning. In general, infringement does not require the infringer to be a competitor, but infringement requires a similar product. If there has been an infringement of your trademark, you can file a claim under the federal and state laws. As the plaintiff, you have the burden to prove that the use of a similar mark by the defendant has created a likelihood of confusion.
Trademark infringement occurs when one company or organization uses the trademark of another to promote its goods and services. The ultimate issue in infringement cases is whether the public is likely to be confused about the source of the goods or services offered. Determining whether infringement has occurred requires a look at how the trademark is used, and the goods or services that were offered and how closely tied they are in the public mind to the original goods and services.
Many millions of dollars are spent every year litigating the complex issue of trademark infringement. However, a simple one-sentence definition of trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a mark, or of a mark that is confusingly similar to it, used on the same goods or services, or in certain circumstances on similar or dissimilar goods and services.
Although different courts have different tests, the central concept is confusion in the marketplace. The law protects against consumer confusion by ensuring that the marks on the same or similar products or services are sufficiently different. A plaintiff in a trademark infringement case generally must prove 1) it possesses a valid mark; 2) that the defendant used the mark; 3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce, “in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising “of goods and services; and 4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers.
