How Well Do You Know Trademark Law?

11 Questions | Total Attempts: 236

SettingsSettingsSettings
Please wait...
Law Quizzes & Trivia

Take this quick and fun quiz to test your knowledge of trademark law and trademark cases. Don't worry if you get some of the questions wrong. There will be explanations provided to help you learn as you go. You can then discuss your answers with the class on Blackboard. What did you discover that was surprising? What do find perhaps confusing about trademarks? Which concepts did you find the most interesting? How can you apply this knowledge to your work in public relations?


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    • A. 

      They are words, names, symbols or designs used to identify a company's goods and to distinguish them from similar products other companies make.

    • B. 

      They encompass the size, shape, color, texture and graphics associated with a product or service.

    • C. 

      They offer protection for distinctive sounds or "sound logos" associated with a product or service.

    • D. 

      Both A and B

    • E. 

      Both A, B and C

  • 2. 
    Once a company obtains a registred trademark, it is unlikely that it will ever lose protection of its use.
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 3. 
    • A. 

      Aspirin

    • B. 

      Kleenex

    • C. 

      Thermos

    • D. 

      Ping Pong

    • E. 

      Dumpster

    • F. 

      Realtor

    • G. 

      Windbreaker

    • H. 

      Zipper

    • I. 

      Onesies

    • J. 

      Post-it

  • 4. 
    Courts often consider which of the following factors when ruling in competing name cases.
    • A. 

      The interest of the plaintiff in protecting the good will attached to the name.

    • B. 

      The interest of the defendant in using his or her own name in business activities.

    • C. 

      The interest of the public in being free from confusion or deception.

    • D. 

      The interest of the government in using the name for themselves.

    • E. 

      Both A, B and C

  • 5. 
    A cybersquatter can be described as which of the following.
    • A. 

      A person who buys up domain names at random with the hopes of selling them to someone.

    • B. 

      A person who claims domain names that include trademarks or famous people’s names.

    • C. 

      person who makes derogatory remarks on a company’s website, Facebook page or other associated websites.

    • D. 

      A person who, acting in good faith, accidentally purchased a domain name that disparages or injures a well-known trademark. A person who, acting in good faith, accidently purchased a domain name that disparages or injures a well-known trademark.

    • E. 

      Both A and C

  • 6. 
    A history of using a distinctive mark can be enough to identify a product as holding protection even if it is not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 7. 
    • A. 

      Fanciful marks, arbitrary marks, descriptive marks and distinctive marks.

    • B. 

      Fanciful marks, evocative marks, descriptive marks and suggestive marks.

    • C. 

      Fanciful marks, descriptive marks, adjective marks, and noun marks.

    • D. 

      Fanciful marks, descriptive marks, arbitrary marks, and suggestive marks.

    • E. 

      Fanciful marks, descriptive marks, arbitrary marks and general marks.

  • 8. 
    The 1998 case of Panavision International v. Toeppen heard the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is an example of which of the following.  To read more about the case go to: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1286135.html
    • A. 

      Trademark confusion

    • B. 

      Trademark dilution

    • C. 

      An arbitrary trademark

    • D. 

      A descriptive trademark

    • E. 

      None of the above

  • 9. 
    The case Starbucks v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee turned on which of the following key findings of the court when considering the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005.  To read more about the case go to: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1498342.html
    • A. 

      The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 requires proof of substantial similarity between the marks in question for a trademark owner to establish dilution by blurring.

    • B. 

      The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 does not require proof of substantial similarity between the marks in question for a trademark owner to establish dilution by blurring.

    • C. 

      The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 requires proof of long-term use of the marks in question for a trademark owner to establish dilution by blurring.

    • D. 

      The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 does not require proof of long-term use of the marks in question for a trademark owner to establish dilution by blurring.

    • E. 

      The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 is not applicable to the case of Starbucks v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee.

  • 10. 
    In the U.S. Supreme Court case Victor Moseley et al., dba Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al. the court unanimously ruled that "Victor's Little Secret" did not infringe on the trademark held by the similar sounding "Victoria's Secret." To read more about the case go to:  http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case315.cfm The case turned on which of the following finding(s).
    • A. 

      The court based its decision on the standard called trademark confusion, which the federal government interprets as avoiding confusion of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services. The court found there was a complete absence of evidence of any confusion between the Victoria's Secret mark and Victor's Little Secret.

    • B. 

      The court based its decision on the standard called trademark dilution, which the federal government interprets as the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services. The court found there was a complete absence of evidence of any lessening of the Victoria's Secret mark's capacity to identify and distinguish products or services sold in its stores or through its catalog.

    • C. 

      The court based its decision on the standard called trademark dilution, which the federal government interprets as the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services. The court found there was substantial evidience that Victoria's Secret mark's capacity to identify and distinguish products or services sold in its stores or through its catalog was lessened.

    • D. 

      Both A and B.

    • E. 

      None of the above

  • 11. 
    Would this make you angry? Watch this video about a trademark infringement on the brand and popular iPhone app "Angry Birds."  Do you agree with the decision of the company to not pursue a trademark infringement case?  If you were an attorney for the company what advice would you provide to Angry Birds.  Would you recommend making a claim against the Chinese company?  Why or why not?  Discuss this with your classmates.  If you have troubles viewing the video go to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ8f-F2YWTU.  Share your answers on the discussion board on Blackboard.