O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-452 (2019)

Common-law rights in marks not affected

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this part shall adversely affect the rights or the enforcement of rights in trademarks or service marks acquired in good faith at any time at common law.

History

Ga. L. 1952, p. 134, § 18; Ga. L. 1963, p. 463, § 13.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Confusion of names. - Claims for service mark infringement under the federal Lanham Act, the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., and the Georgia law of unfair competition turn on the same question - confusion of similar names. Jellibeans, Inc. v. Skating Clubs of Ga., Inc., 716 F.2d 833, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16353 (11th Cir. 1983). Common law claim. - Customer was

denied summary judgment as to a copyright owner’s common law trademark infringement action because O.C.G.A. § 10-1-452 expressly preserved common law trademark rights and the owner produced sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact on the claim as to the likelihood of confusion. SCQuARE Int’l, Ltd. v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68407 (N.D. Ga. 2006).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 74 Am. Jur. 2d, Trademarks and Tradenames, §§ 1 et seq., 50 et seq. C.J.S. 87 C.J.S., Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition, §§ 1 et seq., 250 et seq.

ALR. Right of one to protection of trade name which he does not use, 48 A.L.R. 1257. Common-law copyright in the spoken word, 32 A.L.R.3d 618.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2015 · leading case: India-Am. Cultural Ass'n, Inc v. Ilink Professionals, Inc., 769 S.E.2d 905 (Ga. 2015).
India-Am. Cultural Ass'n, Inc v. Ilink Professionals, Inc., 769 S.E.2d 905 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 8× “” OCGA § 10-1-452. However, what registration of a service mark or trademark does do is permit the owner of the registered mark to invoke the remedy of a civil action for damages pursuant to OCGA § 10-1-450,6 and more significantly 6 OCGA § 10-1-450 provides: Subject to Code…”
SCQuARE Int'l, Ltd. v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2006). · cites it 2× “” O.C.G.A. § 10-1-452; Diedrich, 254 Ga. at 736 , 334 S.”
India-Am. Cultural Ass'n, Inc v. Ilink Professionals, Inc. (Ga. 2015). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 10-1-452. However, what registration of a service mark or trademark does do is permit the owner of the registered mark to invoke the remedy of a civil action for damages pursuant to OCGA § 10-1-450,6 and more significantly for the purpose of the present appeal, to…”
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.