California Highway Patrol - Shoulder Patch From The 1980 ' S
Item History & Price
| Reference Number: Avaluer:3511150 | Modified Item: No |
| Country/Region of Manufacture: United States | Unit of Sale: Single Patch |
CHP
California Highway Patrol
Shoulder Patch
New from the 1980's
This item is sold as a collectable only
it does not convey any authority of any kind
Worldwide Shippingon an actual cost basis Sales of this item are in full compliance withUnited StatesFederal Law: 18 USC § 716 et seq: (a) Whoever— (1) knowingly transfers, transports, or receives, in interstate or foreign commerce, a counterfeitofficial insignia or uniform;(2) knowingly transfe...rs, in interstate or foreign commerce, a genuine official insignia or uniform to anindividual, knowing that such individual is not authorized to possess it underthe law of the place in which the badge is the official official insignia oruniform;(3) knowingly receives agenuine official insignia or uniform in a transfer prohibited by paragraph (2);or(4) being a person notauthorized to possess a genuine official insignia or uniform under the law ofthe place in which the badge is the official insignia or uniform, knowinglytransports that badge in interstate or foreign commerce, shall be fined underthis title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both. (b) Itis a defense to a prosecution under this section that the insignia or uniformis other than a counterfeit insignia or uniform and is not used to mislead ordeceive, or is used or is intended to be used exclusively— (1) as a memento, or ina collection or exhibit;(2) for decorativepurposes;(3) for a dramatic presentation, such as a theatrical, film, or television production; or(4) for any otherrecreational purpose. (c) Asused in this section— (1) the term “genuinepolice badge” means an official badge issued by public authority to identify anindividual as a law enforcement officer having police powers;(2) the term“counterfeit police badge” means an item that so resembles a police badge thatit would deceive an ordinary individual into believing it was a genuine policebadge; and (3) the term “officialinsignia or uniform” means an article of distinctive clothing or insignia, including a badge, emblem or identification card, that is an indicium of theauthority of a public employee;(4) the term “publicemployee” means any officer or employee of the Federal Government or of a Stateor local government; and(5) the term “uniform”means distinctive clothing or other items of dress, whether real orcounterfeit, worn during the performance of official duties and whichidentifies the wearer as a public agency employee. (d) Itis a defense to a prosecution under this section that the official insignia oruniform is not used or intended to be used to mislead or deceive, or is acounterfeit insignia or uniform and is used or is intended to be usedexclusively— (1) for a dramaticpresentation, such as a theatrical, film, or television production; or(2) for legitimate lawenforcement purposes. A. TheUse of Another’s Trademark In A Descriptive Sense
It is a basic principle marking an outerboundary of the trademark monopoly that, while trademark rights may be acquiredin a word, symbol or device, acquisition of those rights does not preventothers from using the word, symbol or devise in good faith in its descriptivesense, and not as a trademark. “This principle is of great importancebecause it protects the right of society at large to use words or images intheir primary descriptive sense, as against the claims of a trademark owner toexclusivity.” Car-Freshner Corp. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 70 F.3d 267, 269(2d Cir. 1995); see Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S.125 (1947) (registering proper noun as trademark does not withdraw it fromlanguage, nor reduce it to exclusive possession of registrant). To comewithin this fair use defense a person must make use of the other party’strademark (i) other than as a mark, (ii) in a descriptive sense, and (iii) ingood faith. See 15 U.S.C. §1115(b)(4). B. Referenceto the Owner of the Mark or the Owner’s Goods or ServicesAnother species of the fair use defense is theuse of a mark when referring to the owner of a mark or the owner’s goods orservices. Once again, this defense is only available if the unauthorizeduser is not using the term for purposes of source identification and the usedoes not imply sponsorship or endorsement by the trademarkowner. Obviously, a great deal of useful social and commercial dialoguewould be all but impossible if speakers were under threat of an infringement lawsuitevery time they made reference to a person, company or product by using itstrademarks. In New Kids on the Block v. North AmericanPub., Inc., 971 F2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit affirmedsummary judgment in favor of the defendant newspapers which had used thetrademarked name of the band “New Kids on the Block” to refer to the band inpolls it conducted for the purpose of stimulating newspaper sales. TheCourt referred to a “class of cases where the use of the trademark does notattempt to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the cachet of oneproduct for a different one, ” noting that “[s]uch nominative use of a mark –where the only word reasonably available to describe a particular thing ispressed into service – lies outside the strictures of trademark law: TheNinth Circuit stated that a commercial user is entitled to a nominative fairuse defense if the user meets the following three requirements: (i) theproduct or service in issue must not be readily identifiable without referenceto the mark; (ii) only so much of the mark may be used as is reasonablynecessary to identify the product or service; and (iii) the user must not doanything to imply sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. NewKids on the Block, 971 F2d at 308. C. TheFirst SaleDoctrine The unauthorized use of another’s trademark isalso permitted under the “first sale” doctrine. Under this doctrine abusiness that resells genuine, non-adulterated goods bearing a true mark cannotbe held liable for trademark infringement, even if the distributor had noauthority to do so from the actual trademark owner. See PolymerTechnology Corp. v. Mimran, 975 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1992). “Afterthe first sale, the brandholder’s control is deemed exhausted [andd]own-the-line retailers are free to display and advertise the brandedgoods. Secondhand dealers may advertise the branded merchandise for resalein competition with the sales of the markholder . . . .” Osawa& Co. v. B&H Photo, 589 F.Supp. 1163 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
