Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Dow Chemical Company v. Mahlum

12/31/1998

the liability claims brought by the Mahlums. In 1975, Dow Corning and Dow Chemical memorialized an agreement in which Dow Chemical licensed the "Dow" trademark to Dow Corning. The agreement recited that Dow Chemical had established a valuable reputation under its corporate name "Dow." The agreement confirmed and ratified Dow Corning's use of the Dow mark, so that the valuable reputation established in the name Dow would be passed on to Dow Corning. The agreement also provided as follows:


"The products manufactured, distributed and sold or any services rendered under The Corporate Title [Dow Corning Corporation] , The Trade Name [Dow Corning] , The Design Trademark [double rectangle], or other trademarks containing, consisting of or comprising "DOW CORNING" shall be of a nature and quality that is acceptable to Dow [Chemical] Company and shall not damage or reflect adversely on the reputation or goodwill associated with the name and mark "DOW". When requested, [Dow Corning] shall at reasonable times and places submit specimens of its products to Dow [Chemical] Company and shall permit inspection of [Dow Corning's] premises at reasonable times . . . to examine the quality of such products."


The agreement stated that Dow Chemical and Corning had "controlled" the operations and the quality of goods and services of Dow Corning since that company's inception in 1943. Id. Dow Chemical thus maintained the authority to approve products using the Dow Corning mark. Dow Chemical could also require that Dow Corning terminate all use of the name Dow or any product not approved by Dow Chemical.


The Mahlums argued at trial and on appeal that the agreement demonstrated that Dow Chemical controlled the operations of Dow Corning and that Dow Chemical had the right to inspect and approve Dow Corning's breast implants. Dow Chemical argued that the agreement has little significance and that the language regarding control was required under the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051. According to Dow Chemical, there is no evidence that Dow Chemical exercised any control under this agreement regarding Dow Corning's breast implants. The head of Dow Corning's breast implant business testified that Dow Chemical never exercised any control over Dow Corning's breast implant business, and that he never knew of the agreement's existence.


One of the leading authorities on trademarks states that " icensing a mark without adequate control over the quality of goods or services sold under the mark by the licensee may cause the mark to lose its significance as a symbol of equal quality -- hence, abandonment." J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 17:6, at 17-6 (4th ed. 1998) (McCarthy). "Today, trademark licensing is permitted so long as the licensor maintains adequate control over the nature and quality of goods and services sold under the mark by the licensee." Id. , § 18:42, at 18-66. The licensor thus has a duty to control the quality of the goods and services sold under the mark; if it fails to do so, it may forfeit its right to the mark. See id. , §§ 18: 66 -68; Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc. , 267 F. 2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959).


In this case, no significance should attach to the agreement as evidence of Dow Chemical's "control" of Dow Corning, or evidence of conspiracy or concert of action to make misrepresentations to consumers of Dow Corning's breast implants. The "control" language was almost certainly placed in the agreement to protect Dow's right to the name "Dow" when associated with the "Dow Corning" mark. There is no evidence that Dow Chemical exercised any control or even inspected Dow Corning's breast implants under this agreement.

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 

Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE