CASE ANALYSIS 3
be obstructed. When the two conflicts, the state law must yield to the federal law which is
superior (Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots, 1968). Despite the Hoots’ efforts to argue that
they should be given exclusive rights over the entire Illinois to avoid customers’ confusion with
their competitor’s products, the law maintained that the national Burger King could not be
denied access to this state. The Hoots did not prove that the public was likely to face the
confusion of the products, hence the court was not persuaded by this argument (Burger King of
Florida, Inc. v. Hoots, 1968). Therefore, the court distinctively separated the geographical
location of the two businesses to reduce public confusion to a minimum. Additionally, the
sections prohibited dual registration of the mark in the state of Illinois.
The article, Crime, Law and Social Change by Goyes elaborates on the different types of
intellectual property rights and their importance in the protection of innovation. Goyes (2016)
points out that protects the expression of the creative ideas. The author notes that copyrights
protect original ideas and compositions which further encourages creativity. However, under the
doctrine of the fair use, a portion of copyrighted work can be used for purposes such as
comments, teaching, news reporting, and criticism. The protection of an intrastate trademark is
done under the common law (Goyes, 2016; Kubasek et al., 2017). Registration of the trademark
at federal level gives more exclusive rights over the state registered marks. Consequently, the
article relates to the Burger King v. Hoots case where the federal registration was considered
superior to the state rule.
Significance of the case
Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots case clarifies the importance of the Trademark
registration, particularly the Federal Trademark registration. Trademarks, copyrights, patents,
trade secrets and other intellectual property should be regarded as an investment. A federal
