Introduction
Chick-fil-A, Inc. was an organization that was organized in the early 1960s and is considered to be the second biggest fast food chicken eatery in the entire United States. Chick-fil-A stores are positioned in 39 states and that includes the District of Columbia. Research shows that the sales for 2011 had actually gone way past the $4.1 billion mark. Research also displays that Chick-fil-A maintains a crowd of trademarks, as well as trademarks for “Chick-fil-A” and not to mention for the motto “Eat more chicken” nevertheless, Chick-fil-A has some disputes over the years such as the case of Robert Muller-Moore who wanted to use the trademark. This paper will defend Chick-fil-A in stating why he should not be able to use it.
Robert Muller-Moore Case
Despite the fact Chick-fil-A does not have any restaurants in the state of Vermont, the fast-food business has been able to find out that a Vermont occupant-artist, named Bo Muller-Moore, was going around selling some t-shirts that had the phrase “Eat More Kale” written on them. When this occurred, Chick-fil-A did not have a problem expressing their concern that his motto was way to too alike to the “Eat more chicken” symbol. However, in 2011, Chick-fil-A was able to have a cease-and-desist letter sent a to Mr. Muller-Moore. On the letter, it articulated Chick-fil-A’s worry that Muller-Moore’s t-shirt expression was “possible to start chaos of the public and weakens the uniqueness of Chick-fil-A’s knowledgeable possessions.” Importance of the Statutory Law Statutory law is something that is crucial to our survival and also to business such as in the judicial system and whether or not people and businesses are protected in the society. It is considered to be the basis for much of our law and how the governmental bodies purpose. This law actually protects Chick-fil-A from Robert Muller-Moore and this law is the reason why her cannot use the trade mark.
Trademark Dilution Revision Act
This act is another reason why Robert Muller-Moore cannot use the trademark. However, this law was passed in the United States which did cover the trademark law, and exactly able to handle the trademark reduction. This law protects Chick-fil-A because up under this law, a company is allowed to sue if they believe that another company has stolen their logo. With that said, Chick-fil-A up under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, a corporation like them is able to sue Robert Muller-Moore for trademark infringement if Chick-fil-A can prove that they made a brand that imitates the first. The strength of the plaintiff is very much protected because Robert Muller-Moore is the one that has broken the law. The proximity of the products and their competitiveness with one another was close but in this case, Robert Muller-Moore stole the rights from Chick-fil-A Chick-fil-A.
Actually, Chick-fil-A, which is a multi-million dollar fast food company, should be able to have its way, and Muller-Moore will not be able to have its business protect even though they lately requested for a federal trademark which happened to be on his business name. With this law, the plaintiff being Chick-fil-A and also known as the Corporate Goliath can make the threats to block the slogan EAT MORE KALE’s trademark effort and also put a huge shutdown on the business. The reason for this is that back in 2006, the fried chicken giant’s lawyers dis something that was very clever. They had sent Muller-Moore a cease-and-desist letter. This letter was very important because it ordering him to stop utilizing the EAT MORE KALE logo and also have them to send Chick-fil-A all of his t-shirts that they had made. Robert Muller-Moore has broken the law and what gives Chick-fil-A the upper hands was the fact that their opponent knew what they were doing.
Lanham act
The Lanham (Trademark) Act which was put into practice on July 6, 1946, was the most important federal trademark decree of law that took place in the United States. The Act protects Chick-fil-A from Robert Muller-Moore taking the logo because this law does prohibit a number of different type of activities, as well as trademark violation, false advertising false advertising and trademark dilution. This law has many subdivisions. The provisions of Subchapter I protects Chick-fil-A from Robert Muller-Moore because it set forth the right of trademark for the owners of the organization to get a federal registration of their ownership and the marks on what they possess. Subchapter I protects Chick-fil-A because their marks has received a registration on the Principal Register, which gives numerous rights on the trademark owner of Chick-fil-A to stop others from trespassing on their mark. This law does state that among the necessities are prohibitions contrary to the registration of marks that are astonishingly close to marks that are considered to be existing marks. Chick-fil-A is protected from Robert Muller-Moore because Subchapter I likewise set forth particular procedural requirements, for example the proposal of an affirmation of continual utilization after five years of registration.
Intellectual Property Law
Chick-fil-A is protected from Robert Muller-Moore up under the Intellectual property (IP) which is a legal perception that does refer to productions of the mind for which selected privileges are actually documented. Under this intellectual property law, owners such as the one from Chick-fil-A are granted certain type of exclusive rights to a diversity of elusive possessions, for instance literary, musical, and artistic works; inventions and discoveries; and also things such as phrases, words, symbols, and various types of designs. Common kinds of intellectual property rights contain copyright, patents, trademarks, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some dominions certain types of trade secrets.
In the case of Chick-fil-A, Robert Muller-Moore according to the law stole the trade secrets. A trade secret is when a business is able to get an economic advantage over customers or competitors. Obviously, Chick-fil-A was doing this when Robert Muller-Moore came along and took their strategy. In the United States, trade secret law is chiefly taken care of at the state place up under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and a lot of the states have adopted this law.
Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc.
One case that is similar to the Chick-fil-A and Robert Muller-Moore case is the Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc. case. It is similar for the reason that this case was an action for trademark infringement, competition that was considered to be unfair, and defilement of the New York anti-dilution decree, introduced by plaintiff Toys "R" Us, Inc. ("Toys") in contradiction of defendants Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc., d/b/a Kids `r' Us ("Kids"). In this case, the Plaintiff had made an application, which was done by order so that cause can be showed, for a preliminary order which had occurred in December 21, 1982. In this situation, the Defendants had been cross-moved for a preliminary ban during that time. By the time it was all over with, this Court, per arrangement of the gatherings, were able to enter some kind of an order ordering and confining the plaintiff from using the Kids "R" Us name and mark using the Kids "R" Us name and mark or opening stores or, pending trial of this action.
Starbucks, Inc. v. Wolfe
This case is similar to the Chick-fil-A and Rober Muller-Moore because in 2006, Congress had corrected the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) when they passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA). This law TDRA was, partially, a lawmaking reply to the Supreme Court’s choice in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. where the Court moved that the FTDA needed the plaintiff to prove “real dilution” so as to prosper on an entitlement of trademark attenuation. In this situation, The TDRA rejected the liability of evidence used in Moseley I, giving in its place that the possessor of a mark that happens to be distinctive and famous is permitted to an ban in contradiction of a use of a mark that is simply “likely” to water down the well-known mark.
