Wisconsin § 132.02 - Duplication or reproduction.

§ 132.02. Duplication or reproduction.

132.02(1) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or union of workingmen, without the consent of the owner of any mark, to remove any such mark attached to merchandise or products of labor, for the purpose of using such merchandise or products of labor as a pattern for the duplicating or reproduction of the same, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive. 132.02(2) (2) Nothing herein contained shall be taken to prohibit the using of such merchandise or products of labor as a pattern for the reproduction of the same in individual cases of emergency repairs. 132.02(3) (3) It shall be unlawful for any other person to make use, with intent to deceive, of that mark or any counterfeit mark which is identical to or substantially identical to that mark, or to utter or display the same orally, or in any printed or written form in the conduct of his or her business or any business transaction without the express consent, license, and authority of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or union so owning the same, and such unauthorized and unlawful use may be prohibited and prevented by injunction or other proper proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction without recourse to the penal statute providing a punishment for such unlawful use. In case such association or union of workingmen is not incorporated such actions may be commenced and prosecuted by an officer or member of such association or union on behalf of and for the use of such association or union. This subsection does not apply to the purchase of merchandise in good faith from a distributor or the retail sale of that merchandise in good faith. 132.02 History History: 1985 a. 181 ; 1991 a. 490 . 132.02 Annotation State action based on an alleged trademark infringement under sub. (3) was not removable to federal court because of federal registration of trademarks. The federal act does not preempt reliance on state trademark laws. Gardner v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 383 F. Supp. 151 (1974). 132.02 Annotation Registration of a mark does not alone confer rights to the claimant. Mil-Mar Shoe Co. v. Shonac Corp., 906 F. Supp. 476 (1995). 132.02 Annotation 21st Century White Collar Crime: Intellectual Property Crimes in the Cyber World. Simon & Jones. Wis. Law. Oct. 2004.