The common law is the driving force behind American trademark law, however, federal legislation shapes much of the legal environment. Federal law provides benefits through a nationwide trademark registration system and an increased award of damages if the owner of a federal mark wins in an infringement suit. The United States trademark statute is referred to as the Lanham Act after the bill's primary sponsor, Fritz G. Lanham. The Lanham Act is broken into four discrete parts, 

1. The Principle Register — 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–72;
2. The Supplemental Register — 15 U.S.C. §§ 1091–96 
3. General Provisions — 15 U.S.C. §§ 1111–29.
4. The Madrid Protocol — 15 U.S.C. § 1141. 

The provisions of the Act can be found at the official website of the United States Code, West's United States Code Annotated, and Lexis' United States Code Service.

For information on registration of the international marks within the United States, see 15 U.S.C § 1126 titled "International Conventions" (West or Lexis)  and 15 U.S.C. § 1141 titled "The Madrid Protocol" (West or Lexis). 

Oklahoma's trademark law is codified at Okla Stat. tit. 78, § 21 et seq. (2025). The official text is available via the Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN) or via PDF. The statute provides that a mark that is in use in the state of Oklahoma may be registered with the Secretary of State. 78 Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 22 (OSCN 2025). The requirements for registration closely mirror the requirements for federal trademark registration. See infra United States Trademark Basics. In contrast, the statute provides a more defined list of state deceptive trade practices than the Lanham Act. Compare 78 Okla. Stat. tit. 78 § 53 (OSCN 2025) with 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (2025).  

The Oklahoma trademark registry can be searched via the Secretary of State website.

For a case invoking the remedies provided under the Oklahoma trademark law, consider Brill v. The Walt Disney Co., 2010 OK CIV APP 132, 249 P.3d 1099 (suing Disney on the belief that "Lighting McQueen" from the movie Cars constituted a misapprotion of a stock car driver's name, image and likeness). 

For additional cases discussing state trademarks, consult:

1. Donald M. Zupanec, Annotation, Practices forbidden by state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts, 89 A.L.R. 3d Art. 499 (1979), available via Westlaw or Lexis. 
2. Donald M. Zupanec, Annotation, Scope and exemptions of state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts, 89 A.L.R. 3d Art. 399 (1979), available via Westlaw or Lexis.