The Mercury News reports that a Philadelphia judge has ruled that a duck’s quack cannot be protected by trade mark law. The judgment arose out of a dispute between two companies that run “duck tours”, amphibious tours which travel both by road and on rivers. Ride the Ducks, which began operating a year before rival Super Ducks, introduced the “Wacky Quacker”, a whistle which produces a duck sound and encouraged its customers to use the whistle and shout “quack! quack!” to passing pedestrians. Ride the Ducks obtained trade mark protection for “a quacking noise made by tour guides and tour participants by use of duck call devices". However, Super Ducks began using the “Kwacky Kwacker”, an identical whistle which produced a duck noise. District Judge Legrome D. Davis ruled that the duck noise is too familiar to be either inherently distinctive or to have acquired distinctiveness.

Not a trade mark in Philadelphia

The IPKat says that, following the ECJ’s decision in Shieldmark v Kist, not only would a quack be likely to lack distinctiveness, but also it would be impossible to graphically represent.

The IPKat however is not amused…

More ducks here, here, here, here and here
US JUDGE DOESN'T DUCK THE ISSUE US JUDGE DOESN'T DUCK THE ISSUE Reviewed by Anonymous on Sunday, April 03, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.