O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
As used in this part, the term: (1) “Article” means a product as distinguished from its trademark, label, or distinctive dress in packaging. (2) “Certification mark” means a mark used in connection with the goods or services of a person other than the certifier to indicate geographic origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of the goods or services or to indicate that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization. (3) “Collective mark” means a mark used by members of a cooperative, association, or other collective group or organization to identify goods or services and distinguish them from those of others or to indicate membership in the collective group or organization. (4) “Mark” means a word, name, symbol, device, or any combination of the foregoing in any form or arrangement. (5) “Person” means an individual, corporation, government, or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, unincorporated association, two or more of any of the foregoing having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity. (6) “Service mark” means a mark used by a person to identify services and to distinguish them from the services of others. (7) “Trademark” means a mark used by a person to identify goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. (8) “Trade name” means a word, name, symbol, device, or any combination of the foregoing in any form or arrangement used by a person to identify his business, vocation, or occupation and distinguish it from the business, vocation, or occupation of others.
SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES
History
Ga. L. 1968, p. 337, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. For article, “A Patent and Trademark Primer,” see 15 Ga. St. B. J. 58 (1978).
For article, “Trademark Litigation,” a brief overview of the subject, see 17 Ga. St. B. J. 158 (1981).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Trade names. - Georgia Supreme Court held that trade names are only protected from use by others to the extent that such use is deceptive or there is a
likelihood of confusion by the public. Edible IP, LLC v. Google, LLC, 313 Ga. 305, 869 S.E.2d 481, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 29 (2022).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 74 Am. Jur. 2d, Trademarks and Tradenames, § 1 et seq. C.J.S. 87 C.J.S., Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition, §§ 1 et seq., 17 et seq., 142 et seq.. 90 C.J.S., Trusts, § 275.
U.L.A. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (1966 Revision) (U.L.A.) § 1. ALR. Who is a “consumer” entitled to protection of state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts, 63 A.L.R.5th 1.
Notes of Decisions
In re Fluidmaster, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 3d 940 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
“Injunctive Relief Under GUDTPA As part of Plaintiffs’ sixteenth cause of action under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, “Plaintiff Eisen and the Georgia Subclass members * * * seek appropriate injunctive relief to remedy [Defendant’s] misconduct, along with…”
Bartels v. Alabama Com. Coll., Inc., 918 F. Supp. 1565 (S.D. Ga. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Can Count Three of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Alleging Violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Survive Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss? Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-371 et seq. This Act,…”
Edible Ip, LLC v. Google, LLC, 869 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. 2022).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 10-1-371 (8). “Goodwill” has been defined as “essentially the positive reputation that a particular business enjoys.”
Ackerman Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Design Sec. Sys., Inc., 412 S.E.2d 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The trial court found the yard signs to be similar in size *806 and shape, although different with regard to color, company name, telephone number, and other marks, and granted Design’s motion with respect to Ackerman’s claims for trademark infringement and for all claims under…”
Groucho's Franchise Sys., LLC v. Grouchy's Deli, Inc., 683 F. App'x 826 (11th Cir. 2017).
“§ 1125(a), a violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ga. Code § 10-1-371, violations of the state common law of trademarks and unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.”
Reis v. Ralls, 301 S.E.2d 40 (Ga. 1983).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 10-1-371 (8) (Code Ann. § 106-701); Gordy v.”
Benchmark Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Fiber Indus., Inc., 311 S.E.2d 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “One of its counterclaims contended that Fiber Industries violated the provisions of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (OCGA § 10-1-371 et seq. (Code Ann. § 106-701 et seq.”
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., 106 F.3d 355 (11th Cir. 1997).
“The district court granted in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and made the following rulings: (i) granted Defendant’s motion for a permanent injunction; (ii) denied Defendant’s motion to cancel Plaintiffs nationwide registration of its mark for clothing; (iii)…”
ALW Mktg. Corp. v. Hill, 422 S.E.2d 9 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “, the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, OCGA § 10-1-371 et seq., and for common law unfair competition, for unjust enrichment, and for conversion.”
— 10-1-371(5) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.