From all of us to all of you, we wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
(Photo show Wilshire Blvd. during a light rain shower in Beverly Hills, Calif.
on Friday evening, Dec. 17, 2010. Photo by & Copyright Will Maguire 2010. Used here with permission).
We also welcome you to revisit our Dec. 2006 blog post entitled,
'TIS THE SEASON
which features some brief remarks about winter and holiday related trademarks.
http://trademarkesq.blogspot.com/2006/12/tis-season.html
Happy New Year !
William E. Maguire
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
http://www.TrademarkEsq.com
Los Angeles, California
*** *** ***
Friday, December 24, 2010
Monday, December 06, 2010
Licensing In The Buff
Licensing In The Buff, aka, "Naked Licensing"as an affirmative defense was just clarified by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network (9th Cir., Nov. 24, 2010, No. 08-16382).
As stated by the 9th Circuit: “FreecycleSunnyvale is a member group of The Freecycle Network, an organization devoted to facilitating the recycling of goods. FreecycleSunnyvale filed a declaratory action against The Freecycle Network arising from a trademark licensing dispute, alleging non-infringement of The Freecycle Network’s trademarks and tortious interference with FreecycleSunnyvale’s business relations. FreecycleSunnyvale moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether its naked licensing defense to trademark infringement allowed it to avoid a finding of infringement as a matter of law. The Freecycle Network argued that it had established adequate quality control standards over its licensees’ services and use of the trademarks to avoid a finding of naked licensing and abandonment of its trademarks. The district court granted summary judgment to FreecycleSunnyvale.” On appeal, The Freecycle Network (hereinafter, TFN) asserted that it did exercise adequate and reasonable control over its licensee.
"Naked Licensing" defined:
“Naked Licensing” occurs when the licensor “fails to exercise adequate quality control over the licensee.” Barcamerica at 596. Citing J. Thomas McCarthy, the court also stated, “Naked licensing may result in the trademark’s ceasing to function as a symbol of quality and a controlled source (3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §17:12n.2 (4th ed. 2010)).
The First Rule:
Generally speaking, the trademark owner who licenses the right to use its trademarks to another must exercise control with respect to the quality of their trademark’s on the licensed goods or services. “It is well-established ‘[a] trademark owner may grant a license and remain protected provided quality control of the goods and services sold under the trademark by the licensee is maintained.’” Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F. 3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Analysis:
The 9th Circuit’s analysis in deciding summary judgment on a claim of naked licensing includes:
1. Does the license contain an “express contractual right to inspect and supervise the licensee’s operations? In this case, TRN did not have an express license agreement and without such TRN did not have the express right to inspect and supervise FS.
2. In the absence of an express contractual right to quality control, did the licensor nevertheless demonstrate actual control through inspection or supervision?
3. Even if licensor did not itself exercise actual control, was there, in fact, “a close working relationship” between licensor and licensee “to establish adequate quality control in the absence of a formal agreement.”? Barcamerica, 289 F. ed at 597.)
The 9th Circuit, in the end, ruled “that TFN (1) did not retain express contractual control over FreecycleSunnyvale’s quality control measures, (2) did not have actual control over FreecycleSunnyvale’s quality control measures, and (3) was unreasonable in relying on FreecycleSunnyvale’s quality control measures. Therefore, we conclude that TFN engaged in naked licensing and consequently abandoned the trademarks. The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of FreecycleSunnyvale and against TFN is AFFIRMED.”
The Take-Aways:
1. “Put It In Writing.” After all, as the saying goes (reputedly by the legendary Studio mogul, Jack Warner), “an oral contract is not worth the paper it is written on. Include express rights of the licensor to inspect or supervise the license. There should be quality control standards that are enforced by the licensor.
2. “Stay Busy”, e.g., paper the file. Confirm phone calls or conversations in writing or via email. Keep a “Quality Control” file and maintain it.
3. “Stay Involved”, e.g., do not rely solely on your licensee’s own quality control measures.
Conclusion:
A finding and ruling of the existence of a “naked license” is just the kind of double whammy the licensor definitely wants to avoid. Not only is your license unenforceable, but your trademarks are declared “abandoned”. Pay attention to your license and licensee and you too may live to enjoy the sweet smell of success. It sure beats getting caught with your pants down running naked and without a license... and no mark to show for it.
*** *** ***
As stated by the 9th Circuit: “FreecycleSunnyvale is a member group of The Freecycle Network, an organization devoted to facilitating the recycling of goods. FreecycleSunnyvale filed a declaratory action against The Freecycle Network arising from a trademark licensing dispute, alleging non-infringement of The Freecycle Network’s trademarks and tortious interference with FreecycleSunnyvale’s business relations. FreecycleSunnyvale moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether its naked licensing defense to trademark infringement allowed it to avoid a finding of infringement as a matter of law. The Freecycle Network argued that it had established adequate quality control standards over its licensees’ services and use of the trademarks to avoid a finding of naked licensing and abandonment of its trademarks. The district court granted summary judgment to FreecycleSunnyvale.” On appeal, The Freecycle Network (hereinafter, TFN) asserted that it did exercise adequate and reasonable control over its licensee.
"Naked Licensing" defined:
“Naked Licensing” occurs when the licensor “fails to exercise adequate quality control over the licensee.” Barcamerica at 596. Citing J. Thomas McCarthy, the court also stated, “Naked licensing may result in the trademark’s ceasing to function as a symbol of quality and a controlled source (3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §17:12n.2 (4th ed. 2010)).
The First Rule:
Generally speaking, the trademark owner who licenses the right to use its trademarks to another must exercise control with respect to the quality of their trademark’s on the licensed goods or services. “It is well-established ‘[a] trademark owner may grant a license and remain protected provided quality control of the goods and services sold under the trademark by the licensee is maintained.’” Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F. 3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Analysis:
The 9th Circuit’s analysis in deciding summary judgment on a claim of naked licensing includes:
1. Does the license contain an “express contractual right to inspect and supervise the licensee’s operations? In this case, TRN did not have an express license agreement and without such TRN did not have the express right to inspect and supervise FS.
2. In the absence of an express contractual right to quality control, did the licensor nevertheless demonstrate actual control through inspection or supervision?
3. Even if licensor did not itself exercise actual control, was there, in fact, “a close working relationship” between licensor and licensee “to establish adequate quality control in the absence of a formal agreement.”? Barcamerica, 289 F. ed at 597.)
The 9th Circuit, in the end, ruled “that TFN (1) did not retain express contractual control over FreecycleSunnyvale’s quality control measures, (2) did not have actual control over FreecycleSunnyvale’s quality control measures, and (3) was unreasonable in relying on FreecycleSunnyvale’s quality control measures. Therefore, we conclude that TFN engaged in naked licensing and consequently abandoned the trademarks. The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of FreecycleSunnyvale and against TFN is AFFIRMED.”
The Take-Aways:
1. “Put It In Writing.” After all, as the saying goes (reputedly by the legendary Studio mogul, Jack Warner), “an oral contract is not worth the paper it is written on. Include express rights of the licensor to inspect or supervise the license. There should be quality control standards that are enforced by the licensor.
2. “Stay Busy”, e.g., paper the file. Confirm phone calls or conversations in writing or via email. Keep a “Quality Control” file and maintain it.
3. “Stay Involved”, e.g., do not rely solely on your licensee’s own quality control measures.
Conclusion:
A finding and ruling of the existence of a “naked license” is just the kind of double whammy the licensor definitely wants to avoid. Not only is your license unenforceable, but your trademarks are declared “abandoned”. Pay attention to your license and licensee and you too may live to enjoy the sweet smell of success. It sure beats getting caught with your pants down running naked and without a license... and no mark to show for it.
*** *** ***
Thursday, September 23, 2010
"Intellectual Property" According to DILBERT® - The Sequel
This past week the L.A. Times featured a particularly funny episode in the 'corporate work world' based DILBERT® syndicated cartoon strip. *** See for yourself.
(Please Note: This comic strip has been reproduced for fair use purposes in connection with a corresponding blog post on the topic of Intellectual Property. The DILBERT® comic strip is not being used here as a trademark.)
The 'double entendre' in the second panel aside, this amusing storyline raises several intellectual property related issues, including but not limited to:
1. What is "intellectual property"?
2. Can someone really repeat/reproduce the verbal expression of another without their permission?
3. Can the name and likeness of the boss, who said the 'dumb things', be used by his employee who plans on publishing a book based entirely on the dumb things his boss has said?
We plan on answering these questions in our next posting so please stay tuned. Thank you for your interest.
*** This cartoon has been reproduced pursuant to the Fair Use principles of the U.S. Copyright Act for the purpose of this educational and scholarly article. DILBERT is the property of and Copyright Scott Adams, Inc. 2010. www.Dilbert.com. DILBERT® is the trademark of Scott Adams, Inc.
For more information on the DILBERT cartoon strip and series, check out the Wikipedia article online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert
---
Until next time...
William E. Maguire, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
Los Angeles, California
www.TrademarkEsq.com
DISCLAIMER: William E. Maguire and TrademarkEsq.com are not affiliated with DILBERT® or Scott Adams, Inc.
(Please Note: This comic strip has been reproduced for fair use purposes in connection with a corresponding blog post on the topic of Intellectual Property. The DILBERT® comic strip is not being used here as a trademark.)
The 'double entendre' in the second panel aside, this amusing storyline raises several intellectual property related issues, including but not limited to:
1. What is "intellectual property"?
2. Can someone really repeat/reproduce the verbal expression of another without their permission?
3. Can the name and likeness of the boss, who said the 'dumb things', be used by his employee who plans on publishing a book based entirely on the dumb things his boss has said?
We plan on answering these questions in our next posting so please stay tuned. Thank you for your interest.
*** This cartoon has been reproduced pursuant to the Fair Use principles of the U.S. Copyright Act for the purpose of this educational and scholarly article. DILBERT is the property of and Copyright Scott Adams, Inc. 2010. www.Dilbert.com. DILBERT® is the trademark of Scott Adams, Inc.
For more information on the DILBERT cartoon strip and series, check out the Wikipedia article online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert
---
Until next time...
William E. Maguire, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
Los Angeles, California
www.TrademarkEsq.com
DISCLAIMER: William E. Maguire and TrademarkEsq.com are not affiliated with DILBERT® or Scott Adams, Inc.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A Primer on the Selection And Clearance of Trademarks
*** As Published in the L.A. Daily Journal ***
AUGUST 5, 2010 | PERSPECTIVE
A Primer on the Selection And Clearance of Trademarks
By William E. Maguire
Surfboards, swim fins, wetsuits, t-shirts, swimsuits, sunglasses, sunscreen, bottled water, sandals, umbrellas, towels, volleyballs, ice chests - sounds like another summer day at the beach! To the savvy, business entrepreneur, however, these beach accessories are the breeding ground for commercial exploitation. Not far behind in this consumer petrie dish of sand and capitalism is the need to select a trademark by which the item exploited will be known, e.g., Hobie® surfboards, O'Neill® wetsuits, Oakley® sunglasses, Tommy Bahama® beach towels, hats, shirts and shorts, and Coppertone® sunscreen and tanning lotions. A trademark is defined as any word, symbol, slogan, or device (such as a design), or a combination of them, used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods or services and to distinguish them from those manufactured, sold or serviced by others. Coppertone® and Speedo® are excellent examples of 'word' marks. "Tan Don't Burn" is an example of a 'slogan' mark. A logo or design such as the famous Coppertone girl and the dog is an example of a 'design' mark. An example of a service mark is ESPN® for the "entertainment services, reporting and sports programming services rendered through the medium of television." Such a service mark can also be exploited and serve as a trademark (i.e., for clothes (shirts, hats, sweaters; prerecorded dvd's and cd's; beach bags, beach towels, etc.). In the U.S., trademark rights are acquired through use (e.g., by selling or transporting your product in commerce with the mark attached or on a label). In addition, under certain circumstances "color" can be a trademark. Examples outside the surf/beach industry are the color "pink" for fiberglass insulation and "green" for dry cleaning pads.
The selection of a trademark is the first step that a merchant undertakes to create an identity. The clearance of a trademark is the process of determining whether or not the trademark is available for use. Ignoring this vital step can lead to a multitude of problems and expense. A two-step process is suggested: First, conduct an online computer trademark search of the mark. This online search identifies the goods sought to be used or sold as trademarks and categorizes by classification. In the United States, the federal government has adopted the international classification system. Toys, sporting goods, volleyballs swim fins, bodyboards, and surfboards are in Class #28. Swimsuits and beach apparel and clothing are in Class #25. Backpacks, beach bags and gear bags are in Class #18. Posters, magazines, books, trading cards, and other printed matter and publications are in Class #16. DVD's, compact discs, video game software (including downloadable software over a global computer network), surfing and skateboard helmets are in Class #9. Therefore, if you are planning to sell surfboards, apparel and gear bags, then you will want to conduct an online search of Classes # 28, 25 and 18. The online search is often called a "knock-out" search because it is a quick and relatively inexpensive way to determine if the mark is taken. These searches are available at www.uspto.gov, or can be performed by commercial search firms and law firms.
If your mark appears free of conflicts after conducting an online search, the next step is the full search, which is obtained from commercial search firms. The full search will scour the federal database of trademarks at the Patent and Trademark Office, state trademark registrations, common law sources such as phone directories, the Internet and Dun & Bradstreet listings, plus Internet domain name registrations. If your mark still appears clear of conflicts after a full search, then you can be fairly certain that you can adopt and start using your mark. These searches are not guarantees of the absence of conflicting marks, but they do allow a merchant to make an informed decision in the clearance of a trademark.
To obtain maximum protection, it is best to register your trademark or service mark. In the U.S., your greatest rights can be obtained with a federal trademark registration. If you are only conducting business within one state, it is possible to register your mark with the appropriate Secretary of State. However, if you intend to do business across state lines or in foreign commerce, then the prudent thing to do is to file for a federal trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office located in Alexandria, Va.
An application for registration of a trademark must be filed in the name of the owner of the mark. The on-line application is both recommended and preferred by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at www.uspto.gov. In fact, an application filed via mail is more costly than filing on-line. The applicant must submit: an application; a drawing of the mark; and the required filing fee (which is $325 per mark per class at this time for an application filed on-line, or $375 if filed the old fashioned way). The applicant will also incur attorney fees, typically a fixed fee, should an attorney be hired to file the application. After the mark is registered in the U.S., it is important to give notice of this fact by placing the registered trademark symbol, "®," adjacent to the mark. Prior to registration, it is also advisable to use the symbols, "TM" (for trademarks) and "SM" (for service marks).
The chief advantages of a federal registration include: Constructive notice nationwide of the registrant's claim to ownership of the mark. This eliminates the good faith defense of an infringer who claims to have lacked actual knowledge of the registered mark. Registration is also evidence of the validity of the registration; the registrant's ownership of the mark; and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the goods or services. In addition, registration entitles the registrant to file a lawsuit for infringement of the mark in Federal Court; prevent importation of goods bearing an infringing mark; and use the registration as a basis for registering the same mark in certain foreign countries.
Trademark registrations are valid for 10 years subject to certain use and filing requirements, and are renewable every 10 years, also subject to continued use and renewal filing requirements.
If your product is distributed internationally, then you must, by and large, register your mark in each country where you plan to do business or are doing business. Is this expensive? Yes! On the other hand, the alternative is the potential loss of the ability to sell your product in those countries where a third party has filed a prior application for your mark. Therefore, foreign trademark protection is typically obtained on a country-by-country basis. Unlike the U.S., however, trademark rights in many foreign countries are obtained by registration rather than use. This further necessitates the importance of filing for marks in foreign countries as soon as possible.
One notable alternative to the typical practice of registering trademarks on a country-by-country basis is the European Community Trade Mark Application, which has been available since Jan. 1, 1996. By obtaining a community wide trademark registration, an owner of a U.S. registered trademark, for example, can potentially save both time and money otherwise invested in registering a mark in each separate European country and can thus hopefully attain maximum protection for its trademarks in overseas markets at a minimum of cost.
Whether you are selling products or services, it is very important to be aware of your trademark and/or service mark and their value. In a competitive business environment, the potential for economic loss is tremendous if trademark rights are not acquired, evaluated, protected and maximized.
William E. Maguire is a sole practitioner in Los Angeles and concentrates on trademarks, copyrights and licensing. He can be reached at maguire@artnet.net, or through www.tmesq.com.
AUGUST 5, 2010 | PERSPECTIVE
A Primer on the Selection And Clearance of Trademarks
By William E. Maguire
Surfboards, swim fins, wetsuits, t-shirts, swimsuits, sunglasses, sunscreen, bottled water, sandals, umbrellas, towels, volleyballs, ice chests - sounds like another summer day at the beach! To the savvy, business entrepreneur, however, these beach accessories are the breeding ground for commercial exploitation. Not far behind in this consumer petrie dish of sand and capitalism is the need to select a trademark by which the item exploited will be known, e.g., Hobie® surfboards, O'Neill® wetsuits, Oakley® sunglasses, Tommy Bahama® beach towels, hats, shirts and shorts, and Coppertone® sunscreen and tanning lotions. A trademark is defined as any word, symbol, slogan, or device (such as a design), or a combination of them, used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods or services and to distinguish them from those manufactured, sold or serviced by others. Coppertone® and Speedo® are excellent examples of 'word' marks. "Tan Don't Burn" is an example of a 'slogan' mark. A logo or design such as the famous Coppertone girl and the dog is an example of a 'design' mark. An example of a service mark is ESPN® for the "entertainment services, reporting and sports programming services rendered through the medium of television." Such a service mark can also be exploited and serve as a trademark (i.e., for clothes (shirts, hats, sweaters; prerecorded dvd's and cd's; beach bags, beach towels, etc.). In the U.S., trademark rights are acquired through use (e.g., by selling or transporting your product in commerce with the mark attached or on a label). In addition, under certain circumstances "color" can be a trademark. Examples outside the surf/beach industry are the color "pink" for fiberglass insulation and "green" for dry cleaning pads.
The selection of a trademark is the first step that a merchant undertakes to create an identity. The clearance of a trademark is the process of determining whether or not the trademark is available for use. Ignoring this vital step can lead to a multitude of problems and expense. A two-step process is suggested: First, conduct an online computer trademark search of the mark. This online search identifies the goods sought to be used or sold as trademarks and categorizes by classification. In the United States, the federal government has adopted the international classification system. Toys, sporting goods, volleyballs swim fins, bodyboards, and surfboards are in Class #28. Swimsuits and beach apparel and clothing are in Class #25. Backpacks, beach bags and gear bags are in Class #18. Posters, magazines, books, trading cards, and other printed matter and publications are in Class #16. DVD's, compact discs, video game software (including downloadable software over a global computer network), surfing and skateboard helmets are in Class #9. Therefore, if you are planning to sell surfboards, apparel and gear bags, then you will want to conduct an online search of Classes # 28, 25 and 18. The online search is often called a "knock-out" search because it is a quick and relatively inexpensive way to determine if the mark is taken. These searches are available at www.uspto.gov, or can be performed by commercial search firms and law firms.
If your mark appears free of conflicts after conducting an online search, the next step is the full search, which is obtained from commercial search firms. The full search will scour the federal database of trademarks at the Patent and Trademark Office, state trademark registrations, common law sources such as phone directories, the Internet and Dun & Bradstreet listings, plus Internet domain name registrations. If your mark still appears clear of conflicts after a full search, then you can be fairly certain that you can adopt and start using your mark. These searches are not guarantees of the absence of conflicting marks, but they do allow a merchant to make an informed decision in the clearance of a trademark.
To obtain maximum protection, it is best to register your trademark or service mark. In the U.S., your greatest rights can be obtained with a federal trademark registration. If you are only conducting business within one state, it is possible to register your mark with the appropriate Secretary of State. However, if you intend to do business across state lines or in foreign commerce, then the prudent thing to do is to file for a federal trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office located in Alexandria, Va.
An application for registration of a trademark must be filed in the name of the owner of the mark. The on-line application is both recommended and preferred by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at www.uspto.gov. In fact, an application filed via mail is more costly than filing on-line. The applicant must submit: an application; a drawing of the mark; and the required filing fee (which is $325 per mark per class at this time for an application filed on-line, or $375 if filed the old fashioned way). The applicant will also incur attorney fees, typically a fixed fee, should an attorney be hired to file the application. After the mark is registered in the U.S., it is important to give notice of this fact by placing the registered trademark symbol, "®," adjacent to the mark. Prior to registration, it is also advisable to use the symbols, "TM" (for trademarks) and "SM" (for service marks).
The chief advantages of a federal registration include: Constructive notice nationwide of the registrant's claim to ownership of the mark. This eliminates the good faith defense of an infringer who claims to have lacked actual knowledge of the registered mark. Registration is also evidence of the validity of the registration; the registrant's ownership of the mark; and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the goods or services. In addition, registration entitles the registrant to file a lawsuit for infringement of the mark in Federal Court; prevent importation of goods bearing an infringing mark; and use the registration as a basis for registering the same mark in certain foreign countries.
Trademark registrations are valid for 10 years subject to certain use and filing requirements, and are renewable every 10 years, also subject to continued use and renewal filing requirements.
If your product is distributed internationally, then you must, by and large, register your mark in each country where you plan to do business or are doing business. Is this expensive? Yes! On the other hand, the alternative is the potential loss of the ability to sell your product in those countries where a third party has filed a prior application for your mark. Therefore, foreign trademark protection is typically obtained on a country-by-country basis. Unlike the U.S., however, trademark rights in many foreign countries are obtained by registration rather than use. This further necessitates the importance of filing for marks in foreign countries as soon as possible.
One notable alternative to the typical practice of registering trademarks on a country-by-country basis is the European Community Trade Mark Application, which has been available since Jan. 1, 1996. By obtaining a community wide trademark registration, an owner of a U.S. registered trademark, for example, can potentially save both time and money otherwise invested in registering a mark in each separate European country and can thus hopefully attain maximum protection for its trademarks in overseas markets at a minimum of cost.
Whether you are selling products or services, it is very important to be aware of your trademark and/or service mark and their value. In a competitive business environment, the potential for economic loss is tremendous if trademark rights are not acquired, evaluated, protected and maximized.
William E. Maguire is a sole practitioner in Los Angeles and concentrates on trademarks, copyrights and licensing. He can be reached at maguire@artnet.net, or through www.tmesq.com.
Friday, July 30, 2010
SUMMER 2010: AT THE BEACH
SUMMER 2010: AT THE BEACH
A Primer on the Selection and Clearance of Trademarks
© Copyright 2010, William E. Maguire. All Rights Reserved.
INTRODUCTION:
Surfboards, swim fins, wetsuits, t-shirts, swimsuits, sunglasses, sunscreen, bottled water, sandals, umbrellas, towels, volleyballs, ice chests........ sounds like another summer day at the beach! To the savvy, business entrepreneur, however, these beach accessories/necessities are the breeding ground for commercial exploitation. Not far behind in this consumer petrie dish of sand and capitalism is the need to select a trademark by which the item exploited will be known, e.g., HOBIE® surfboards, O'NEILL® wetsuits, OAKLEY® sunglasses, TOMMY BAHAMA® beach towels, hats, shirts and shorts, VESTAL® wristwatches, MIKASA® volleyballs, and COPPERTONE® sunscreen and tanning lotions. This article will highlight some famous trademarks in the sun, sand & surf and will briefly address the legal and business issues with respect to the selection, clearance and registration of such trademarks.
TRADEMARKS DEFINED
A trademark (or mark) is defined as any word, symbol, slogan, or device (such as a design), or a combination of them, used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods or services and to distinguish them from those manufactured, sold or serviced by others. COPPERTONE® and SPEEDO® are excellent examples of 'word' marks. "TAN DON'T BURN" is an example of a 'slogan' mark. A logo or design such as the famous COPPERTONE girl and the dog is an example of a 'design' mark. An example of a service mark is ESPN® for the "entertainment services, reporting and sports programming services rendered through the medium of television." Such a service mark as ESPN® can also be exploited and serve as a trademark (i.e., for clothes (shirts, hats, sweaters; prerecorded dvd's and cd's; beach bags, beach towels, etc.). In the U.S., trademark rights are acquired through use (e.g., by selling or transporting your product in commerce with the mark attached or on a label). In addition, under certain circumstances "color" can be a trademark. Examples outside the surf/beach industry are the color "pink" for fiberglass insulation and "green" for dry cleaning pads.
SELECTION AND CLEARANCE
The selection of a trademark is the first step that a merchant undertakes to create an identity for his/her surfboard or swimsuit, etc. The clearance of a trademark is the process of determining whether or not the trademark is available and is not being used by someone else as a trademark. This clearance process cannot be overemphasized in its importance. Ignoring this vital step can lead to a multitude of problems and expense. In the clearance of a trademark, a two-step process is suggested. The first step is to conduct an on-line computer trademark search of the mark. This on-line search is further clarified by identifying the goods sought to be used or sold as trademarks are categorized by classification. In the United States, the federal government has adopted the International Classification system. Toys, sporting goods, volleyballs swim fins, bodyboards, and surfboards are in Class #28. Swimsuits and beach apparel and clothing are in Class #25. Backpacks, beach bags and gear bags are in Class #18. Posters, magazines, books, trading cards, and other printed matter and publications are in Class #16. DVD's, compact discs, video game software (including downloadable software over a global computer network), surfing and skateboard helmets are in Class #9. Therefore, if you are planning to sell surfboards, apparel and gear bags, then you will want to conduct an on-line search of Classes # 28, 25 and 18. The on-line search is often called a "knock-out" search. This is because the on-line search is a quick and relatively inexpensive way to determine if the mark is already being used. These on-line searches are available on the internet, e.g., at www.uspto.gov, or can be performed by commercial search firms and law firms.
If your mark appears free of conflicts after conducting an on-line search, the next level of search is the full search, which is obtained from commercial search firms like THOMSON COMPUMARK and CT CORSEARCH. The full search will search the federal database of trademarks at the Patent and Trademark Office, State trademark registrations, common law sources such as phone directories, the internet and Dun & Bradstreet listings, plus internet domain name registrations. If your mark still appears clear of conflicts after a full search, then you can be fairly certain that you can adopt and start using your mark. CAVEAT: These searches are not guarantees of the absence of conflicting marks, but they do allow a merchant to make a more informed decision in the clearance of a trademark.
FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
To obtain maximum protection, it is best to register your trademark or service mark. In the U.S., your greatest rights can be obtained with a federal trademark registration. If you are only conducting business within one state, e.g., California, it is possible to register your mark with the California Secretary of State. However, if it is your intent to do business across state lines or in foreign commerce (or if you are already doing business across state lines or in foreign commerce), then the prudent thing to do is to file for a federal trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office located in Alexandria, Virginia.
An application for registration of a trademark must be filed in the name of the owner of the mark. The on-line application is both recommended and preferred by the USPTO at www.uspto.gov. In fact, a written application filed via U.S. First Class Mail or the like, e.g., the old fashioned way, is more costly than filing on-line. The applicant must submit: (a) an application; (b) a drawing of the mark; (c) the required filing fee (which is $325 per mark per class at this time for an application filed on-line, or $375 if filed the old fashioned way). The applicant will also incur attorneys fees, typically a fixed fee, should an attorney be hired to file the application(s). After the mark is registered in the U.S., it is important to give notice of this fact by placing the registered trademark symbol, "®", adjacent to the mark. Prior to registration, it is also advisable to use the symbols, "TM" (for trademarks) and "SM" (for service marks).
The chief advantages of a federal registration include:
"Constructive Notice" nationwide of the registrant's claim to ownership of the mark. This basically eliminates the good faith defense of an infringer who claims to have lacked actual knowledge of the registered mark.
Registration is also evidence of (a) the validity of the registration; (b) the registrant's ownership of the mark; and (c) the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the goods or services.
Registration also entitles the registrant to (a) file a lawsuit for infringement of the mark in Federal Court; (b) prevent importation of goods bearing an infringing mark; and (c) use the registration as a basis for registering the same mark in certain foreign countries.
Trademark registrations are valid for 10 years subject to certain use and filing requirements, and are renewable every 10 years, also subject to continued use and renewal filing requirements.
FOREIGN TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
If your product is distributed internationally, then you must, by and large, register your mark(s) in each country where you plan to do business or are doing business. Is this expensive? Yes! On the other hand, the alternative is the potential loss of the ability to sell your product in those countries where a third party has filed a prior application for your mark(s). Therefore, foreign trademark protection is typically obtained on a country-by-country basis. Unlike the U.S., however, trademark rights in many foreign countries are obtained by registration rather than use. This further necessitates the importance of filing for marks in foreign countries as soon as possible.
One notable alternative to the typical practice of registering trademarks on a country-by-country basis is the European Community Trade Mark Application which has been available since January 1, 1996. By obtaining a Community wide trademark registration, an owner of a U.S. registered trademark, for example, can potentially save both time and money otherwise invested in registering a mark in each separate European country and can thus hopefully attain maximum protection for its trademarks in overseas markets at a minimum of cost.
CONCLUSION
Whether you are selling products or services, it is very important to be aware of your trademark and/or service mark and their value. In a competitive business environment, the potential for economic loss is tremendous if trademark rights are not acquired, evaluated, protected and maximized. While this article does not portend to cover all the intricacies of trademark law, hopefully it has helped to shed some light on this area of the law which is of paramount importance to the business owner.
---
William E. Maguire is a sole practitioner in Los Angeles and concentrates on trademarks, copyrights and licensing. He can be reached at:
email: maguire@artnet.net
web: www.TrademarkEsq.com
***** ***** *****
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Fair Use: No Harm No Foul!
With apologies to Chick Hearn, when it comes to the fair use of someone else's trademark, the courts upon finding same, are in effect, stating, "No Harm No Foul!"
Additionally, there is (Statutory) Fair Use and then there's (Nominative) Fair Use. Confused? No worries, because...
Recently, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals discussed "nominative fair use" in the matter of:
Toyota Motor Sales U.S. A. Inc. v. Tabari, No. 07-55344, July 8, 2010.
In an opinion written by Chief Judge Kozinski, the court reversed and remanded the District Court's finding of trademark infringement. In a stern and specific ruling, Judge Kozinski stated that on remand the District Court shall use "New Kids" likelihood of confusion test to ascertain a finding of fair use and that the Sleekcraft test for likelihood of confusion was not applicable where a defendant has made a showing of nominative fair use, as in this case. To quote the Court on this point, "When considering the scope and timing of any infringement on remand, the district court must eschew application of Sleekcraft and analyze the case solely under th rubric of nominative fair use.
note: "Sleekcraft" refers to the ordinary test for likelihood of confusion in the 9th Circuit, as set forth in the case, AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d, 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979).
To the facts of this case: The Defendant Tabari registered and was using the internet domain names: buyalexus.com and buyorleaselexus.com
The Tabaris were using the term Lexus to describe their business of brokering Lexus automobiles and this the Court held to be a fair use and therefore not infringing.
The "New Kids" test re nominative fair use is named after an earlier and precedential 9th Circuit case, namely, New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (1992). This New Kids case was later relied upon by the 9th Circuit in the 2002 case, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 801. This test is described by the Court as follows:
"In cases where a nominative fair use defense is raised, we ask whether (1) the product was "readily identifiable" without use of the mark; (2) defendant used more of the mark than necessary; or (3) defendant falsely suggested he was sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder... This test "evaluates the likelihood of confusion in nominative use cases."
Additionally, the court clearly indicated that as to the burden of proof with respect to this defense:
"A defendant seeking to assert nominative fair use as a defense need only show that it used the mark to refer to the trademarked good, as the Tabaris undoubtedly have here. The burden then reverts to the plaintiff to show a likelihood of confusion."
Conclusion: In this case, the 9th Circuit has made clear that the nominative fair use defense can apply to domain names that incorporate third party trademarks, just as the Playboy v. Welles case indicated that use of a mark in a website's metatags constituted nominative fair use.
*** *** ***
Respectfully submitted,
William E. Maguire, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
Los Angeles, California
www.TrademarkEsq.com
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Additionally, there is (Statutory) Fair Use and then there's (Nominative) Fair Use. Confused? No worries, because...
Recently, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals discussed "nominative fair use" in the matter of:
Toyota Motor Sales U.S. A. Inc. v. Tabari, No. 07-55344, July 8, 2010.
In an opinion written by Chief Judge Kozinski, the court reversed and remanded the District Court's finding of trademark infringement. In a stern and specific ruling, Judge Kozinski stated that on remand the District Court shall use "New Kids" likelihood of confusion test to ascertain a finding of fair use and that the Sleekcraft test for likelihood of confusion was not applicable where a defendant has made a showing of nominative fair use, as in this case. To quote the Court on this point, "When considering the scope and timing of any infringement on remand, the district court must eschew application of Sleekcraft and analyze the case solely under th rubric of nominative fair use.
note: "Sleekcraft" refers to the ordinary test for likelihood of confusion in the 9th Circuit, as set forth in the case, AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d, 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979).
To the facts of this case: The Defendant Tabari registered and was using the internet domain names: buyalexus.com and buyorleaselexus.com
The Tabaris were using the term Lexus to describe their business of brokering Lexus automobiles and this the Court held to be a fair use and therefore not infringing.
The "New Kids" test re nominative fair use is named after an earlier and precedential 9th Circuit case, namely, New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 308 (1992). This New Kids case was later relied upon by the 9th Circuit in the 2002 case, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 801. This test is described by the Court as follows:
"In cases where a nominative fair use defense is raised, we ask whether (1) the product was "readily identifiable" without use of the mark; (2) defendant used more of the mark than necessary; or (3) defendant falsely suggested he was sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder... This test "evaluates the likelihood of confusion in nominative use cases."
Additionally, the court clearly indicated that as to the burden of proof with respect to this defense:
"A defendant seeking to assert nominative fair use as a defense need only show that it used the mark to refer to the trademarked good, as the Tabaris undoubtedly have here. The burden then reverts to the plaintiff to show a likelihood of confusion."
Conclusion: In this case, the 9th Circuit has made clear that the nominative fair use defense can apply to domain names that incorporate third party trademarks, just as the Playboy v. Welles case indicated that use of a mark in a website's metatags constituted nominative fair use.
*** *** ***
Respectfully submitted,
William E. Maguire, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
Los Angeles, California
www.TrademarkEsq.com
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Dilution by Blurring is Paved with Good Intentions
Shell espresso. Tide calculators. Camel cupcakes. These are just a few of the musings of Chief Judge Kozinski in the latest 9th Circuit ruling affirming the lower District Court's summary judgment finding of dilution by blurring (Visa vs. JSL, June 28, 2010; No. 08-15206; D.C. No. CV-01-00294-LRH/LRL).
For the reader's convenience, this Opinion is incorporated herein.
Talking Points or Take Aways:
1. Dilution isn't confusion.
2. Dilution occurs when consumers form new and different associations with the plaintiff's mark.
3. Use of an identical mark provides circumstantial evidence of dilution.
4. Establishing likelihood of dilution does not require expert testimony or market surveys.
5. Good intentions alone do not negate a showing of likelihood of dilution.
Comment: With apologies to John Milton, this case does indeed point out that the defendant's "good intentions", e.g., his claim that he had no intent to dilute the plaintiff's VISA mark, "alone do not negate a showing of likelihood of dilution."
Conclusion: Dilution by Blurring is paved with Good Intentions.
6. Non-trademark use of a common English word by third parties does not undermine the uniqueness of said common English word as a trademark by the trademark holder.
7. "But dilution always involves use of a mark by a defendant that is "different" from the plaintiff's use; the injury addressed by anti-dilution law in fact occurs when marks are placed in new and different contexts, thereby weakening the mark's ability to bring to mind the plaintiff's goods or services."
*** *** ***
Respectfully submitted,
William E. Maguire
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
Los Angeles, California
www.TrademarkEsq.com
*** *** *** *** ***
For the reader's convenience, this Opinion is incorporated herein.
Talking Points or Take Aways:
1. Dilution isn't confusion.
2. Dilution occurs when consumers form new and different associations with the plaintiff's mark.
3. Use of an identical mark provides circumstantial evidence of dilution.
4. Establishing likelihood of dilution does not require expert testimony or market surveys.
5. Good intentions alone do not negate a showing of likelihood of dilution.
Comment: With apologies to John Milton, this case does indeed point out that the defendant's "good intentions", e.g., his claim that he had no intent to dilute the plaintiff's VISA mark, "alone do not negate a showing of likelihood of dilution."
Conclusion: Dilution by Blurring is paved with Good Intentions.
6. Non-trademark use of a common English word by third parties does not undermine the uniqueness of said common English word as a trademark by the trademark holder.
7. "But dilution always involves use of a mark by a defendant that is "different" from the plaintiff's use; the injury addressed by anti-dilution law in fact occurs when marks are placed in new and different contexts, thereby weakening the mark's ability to bring to mind the plaintiff's goods or services."
*** *** ***
Respectfully submitted,
William E. Maguire
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
Los Angeles, California
www.TrademarkEsq.com
*** *** *** *** ***
Thursday, June 17, 2010
"Trademarks In The Sun, Sand and Surf"
Summer 2010 is rapidly approaching with some schools already finished and others finishing up this friday. With the warm weather already here, the first official day of summer on Monday, June 21, 2010 will start out strong.
Plenty of trademarks will be out in force too from sunscreen, to hats, to bathing suits, to umbrellas, to surfboards, bodyboards, swim fins, goggles, beach towels, flip flops, t-shirts, sunglasses, etc. et al.
Can you think of some of the brands that come to mind. Coppertone, Oakley, Persol, Nike, Billabong, Quiksilver, Morey, Speedo, etc.
Each of these brands are protected by registered trademarks. If you are doing business and selling product, then you too need to think carefully about obtaining trademark registrations in the countries where you sell your goods.
If you would like to learn a bit more about the basics of registering your trademark, have a look at the following linked article:
AT THE BEACH: A Primer on the Selection and Clearance of Trademarks
http://www.trademarkesq.com/pages/article9.html
In the words of Coppertone, remember: "Tan, Don't Burn!"
William E. Maguire,
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
www.TrademarkEsq.com
*** *** *** *** ***
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
"It's DUNKIN' DONUTS in the USA"
Last month we wrote about DUNKIN' COFFEE in Spain. This month, having just returned from Boston, Mass. last week, we can accurately report that it is still, indeed, DUNKIN' DONUTS, here in the good old U.S. of A. Whew!......
The undersigned attended the Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA) which was held last week in Boston, Mass. (May 22 - 26, 2010), and it seemed that there were DUNKIN' DONUTS locations everywhere. For a professed donut lover this was welcome news. And all the chit chat I've heard over the years about "how good the coffee is at Dunkin' Donuts!".... well, it's true. It's darned decent coffee.
So what does all this have to do with trademarks, you might ask? Plenty! Canton, Mass, as it turns out, is the headquarters of Dunkin' Donuts, a subsidiary of Dunkin' Brands, Inc. Also, Dunkin' Donuts owns a bunch of trademarks and service marks worldwide. Plus, the Trademark Manager, Terry Ursino, at Dunkin' Brands, Inc. was interviewed in the INTA Daily News last week during the INTA Annual Meeting and an excerpt of same is included below.
Dunkin' Trivia: Did you know that Dunkin Brands, Inc. also owns the Basin-Robbins ice cream brand and its trademarks? True story!
Therefore, the balance of this blog post will be a short summary of trademark related facts and figures about Dunkin' Donuts, as TrademarkEsq continues its quest to do mash ups of cool brands and trademarks.
A. Dunkin' Donuts, The Trademark, USA:
The earliest U.S. trademark registration we could locate online at uspto.gov for Dunkin' Donuts, is as follows:
Word Mark DUNKIN' DONUTS
Goods and Services IC 030. US 046. G & S: Doughnuts [and Doughnut Flour, Pastry Fillings and Toppings, Flavoring Extracts, Shortenings, ] and Coffee. FIRST USE: 19540700. USED IN ANOTHER FORM as to "Dunkin' Donuts" on doughnuts May 1952. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19560700
Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Serial Number 72054025 Filing Date June 23, 1958
Current Filing Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A
Registration Number 0715860
Registration Date May 23, 1961
note: According to the records online at uspto.gov, Dunkin' Donuts owns at least 18 registered trademarks and service marks in the USA, plus several pending trademark applications. Thus, one can see that Trademark Registrations play an important role in protecting this famous brand name.
B. Dunkin' Donuts, Worldwide; Comments:
According to Terry Ursino at Dunkin' Brands, Inc., there are Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins restaurants in 45 countries and that they have registered their marks more broadly than that, e.g., in more than 45 countries. This suggests that Dunkin' adheres to the strategy of both offensive and defensive trademark registrations. Offensive marks are those that apply to countries where one offers goods and/or services. Defensive registrations are for those countries where pirating and counterfeiting is anticipated and where use may not yet occur or anticipated.
C. Dunkin Donuts, The INTA Daily News interview (excerpt only):
Question: What is the single biggest challenge you face in protecting your particular brand?
Answer: "Staying one step ahead of trademark priates and cybersquatters. Our brands are world famous, and with fame comes imitation and unauthorized use of our IP."
(Source: "Defending a Delicious Brand", INTA Daily News, Wed., May 26, 2010.)
---
Just a few comments overall about things we think are fun and interesting in the area of brand names and trademarks for you to consider.
Time for a cup of joe,
William Maguire
Blog: wwwTrademarkEsq.blogspot.com
Web: www.TrademarkEsq.com
*** *** *** *** ***
The undersigned attended the Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA) which was held last week in Boston, Mass. (May 22 - 26, 2010), and it seemed that there were DUNKIN' DONUTS locations everywhere. For a professed donut lover this was welcome news. And all the chit chat I've heard over the years about "how good the coffee is at Dunkin' Donuts!".... well, it's true. It's darned decent coffee.
So what does all this have to do with trademarks, you might ask? Plenty! Canton, Mass, as it turns out, is the headquarters of Dunkin' Donuts, a subsidiary of Dunkin' Brands, Inc. Also, Dunkin' Donuts owns a bunch of trademarks and service marks worldwide. Plus, the Trademark Manager, Terry Ursino, at Dunkin' Brands, Inc. was interviewed in the INTA Daily News last week during the INTA Annual Meeting and an excerpt of same is included below.
Dunkin' Trivia: Did you know that Dunkin Brands, Inc. also owns the Basin-Robbins ice cream brand and its trademarks? True story!
Therefore, the balance of this blog post will be a short summary of trademark related facts and figures about Dunkin' Donuts, as TrademarkEsq continues its quest to do mash ups of cool brands and trademarks.
A. Dunkin' Donuts, The Trademark, USA:
The earliest U.S. trademark registration we could locate online at uspto.gov for Dunkin' Donuts, is as follows:
Word Mark DUNKIN' DONUTS
Goods and Services IC 030. US 046. G & S: Doughnuts [and Doughnut Flour, Pastry Fillings and Toppings, Flavoring Extracts, Shortenings, ] and Coffee. FIRST USE: 19540700. USED IN ANOTHER FORM as to "Dunkin' Donuts" on doughnuts May 1952. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19560700
Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Serial Number 72054025 Filing Date June 23, 1958
Current Filing Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A
Registration Number 0715860
Registration Date May 23, 1961
note: According to the records online at uspto.gov, Dunkin' Donuts owns at least 18 registered trademarks and service marks in the USA, plus several pending trademark applications. Thus, one can see that Trademark Registrations play an important role in protecting this famous brand name.
B. Dunkin' Donuts, Worldwide; Comments:
According to Terry Ursino at Dunkin' Brands, Inc., there are Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins restaurants in 45 countries and that they have registered their marks more broadly than that, e.g., in more than 45 countries. This suggests that Dunkin' adheres to the strategy of both offensive and defensive trademark registrations. Offensive marks are those that apply to countries where one offers goods and/or services. Defensive registrations are for those countries where pirating and counterfeiting is anticipated and where use may not yet occur or anticipated.
C. Dunkin Donuts, The INTA Daily News interview (excerpt only):
Question: What is the single biggest challenge you face in protecting your particular brand?
Answer: "Staying one step ahead of trademark priates and cybersquatters. Our brands are world famous, and with fame comes imitation and unauthorized use of our IP."
(Source: "Defending a Delicious Brand", INTA Daily News, Wed., May 26, 2010.)
---
Just a few comments overall about things we think are fun and interesting in the area of brand names and trademarks for you to consider.
Time for a cup of joe,
William Maguire
Blog: wwwTrademarkEsq.blogspot.com
Web: www.TrademarkEsq.com
*** *** *** *** ***
Labels:
brand names,
coffee,
design trademarks,
donuts,
doughnuts,
dunkin' donuts,
inta
Monday, May 17, 2010
It's DUNKIN COFFEE in Spain!
(Photo and Copyright Jim Chadwick 2010. All Rights Reserved. Used here with permission. Thanks Jim!)
A friend of mine recently returned from Barcelona, Spain and took the photo above of a DUNKIN COFFEE sign, as opposed to what we see here in the U.S., namely, DUNKIN DONUTS. Turns out it's a trademark issue. Here is some research I've done on this issue. Long story short, there is a 40 plus year old trademark registration in Spain for DONUT and similar marks owned by a Big Spanish Bakery named Panrico. Apparently, Donut is not as yet recognized as generic in Spain since this is an English term in a Spanish speaking country. But the DONUT trademark registration in Spain may be on its way out with inroads being made by KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS. Scintilling, eh...?!... Fortunately, here in the United States the term DONUT is generic and open to use by all for donuts... and thankfully so for all of us who love donuts.
In Spain, though, Panrico has had a stranglehold over DONUT as a trademark for some 40 years. No such issue exists in Germany, however. Note the three photos below which I took in Berlin in May 2008.
In any event, here is what my research turned up:
Date: May 17, 2010
Re: DUNKIN COFFEE Trademark Issue in Spain; Research Results
1. Spain: Dunkin' Donuts Changes Name to Dunkin' Coffee
http://www.flex-news-food.com/console/PageViewer.aspx?page=11016&str=DUNKIN%20and%20COFFEE
2. SPAIN: Panrico defends ‘Donuts’ trademark, June 11, 2007
http://www.just-food.com/news/panrico-defends-donuts-trademark_id98754.aspx
3. Article 1: No Holes in Donut Monopoly. July 2008
http://www.dyoung.com/trademarknewsletter-jul08
4. PANRICO donuts
http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/panrico-donuts
5. "Mmmmmmmmm, Donuts... the difficulties of successful brand translation in a global market." By Bill Ladas, October 2007.
http://www.davenportlyons.com/legal-services/articles/531/#foot
comment: This article above by Bill Ladas is excellent!
6. Current Status of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts trademarks before the European Community Trademark Office (OHIM):
a. Class #21 trademarks for glassware (Housewares and glass, namely, mugs and coffee cups) is now Registered!
See: http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_DetailCTM_NoReg
Date of Registration: May 28, 2008
Registration No.: 006179808
Trade mark name: Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS (figurative)
note: Krispy Kreme does own an additional Registration in 3 classes in the European Community (CTM) for its mark/logo above for:
Class #25: Clothing, t-shirts, hats, sweatshirts, scarves.
Class #30: Doughnuts, pies, cakes, buns, bagels, coffee.
Class #42: Restaurant services, specialized in the provision of doughnuts, pies, cakes, buns, bagels.
This Registration above, however, is subject to an ongoing Cancellation Action before OHIM by Panrico of Spain! FYI re said Cancellation:
Cancellation No: 000002683
Type of cancellation request: Cancellation based on invalidity
Date of filing of cancellation application: 30/01/2008
Name of applicant for cancellation: PANRICO S.L.
ID Nº of applicant for cancellation: 278854
Nationality of applicant for cancellation:
ES Representative's name: CURELL SUÑOL Representative's ID No: 10682
-----
Fortunately, as we said before, no such issue exists regarding the term DONUT in the U.S. and thankfully so or we might not be able to show these photos below...
That's all folks... for now.
William E. Maguire
Law Offices of William E. Maguire
Los Angeles, CA
www.TrademarkEsq.com
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Apple Files For “iTunes Live” Trademark
(Source: TechCrunch.com; "iTunes Live" image is the property of Apple and is used here for scholarly and academic purposes only.)
Apple Files For “iTunes Live” Trademark,
by Robin Wauters on May 9, 2010
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/09/apple-files-for-itunes-live-trademark/
"Excerpt":
The mark consists of the stylized words “iTunes Live” (see image up top) and was filed under two separate classes:
- Online retail store services in the field of entertainment featuring prerecorded musical, audio and audiovisual content
- Entertainment services, namely, arranging and conducting of concerts and live musical performances
Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/09/apple-files-for-itunes-live-trademark/#ixzz0nSQbVNq8
---
Apple is extremely trademark savvy and most definitely, very aggressive in its approach to registration of its trademarks and service marks.
Until next time.....
William E. Maguire,
www.TrademarkEsq.com
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. MAGUIRE
Los Angeles, Calif.
Trademark • Copyright • Licensing
***** ***** *****
Friday, March 26, 2010
Genericism: To Be or Not To Be !...
It is said that a trademark dies when it is determined to be generic as the common name for the goods or services it represents. Such is the case with aspirin and escalator in the U.S.. This would apply only with respect to the goods commonly associated with this term. Thus, if a bar calls itself "aspirin" such use would not be generic. Likewise, if a career based website calls itself "Escalator" it is not going to be found to be generic.
Nevertheless, it is very important to be careful not to fall into the trap of adopting a merely descriptive term lest you find yourself in generic quicksand. An arbitrary mark, e.g., one that does not describe your goods and/or services, is preferable from both a use and registration perspective.
In the meantime, here are a few resources to help you better understand what it means to be generic.
I. Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP):
1209.01(c) Generic Terms
Generic terms are terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1811 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re American Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1832, 1836 (Fed. Cir. 1999). These terms are incapable of functioning as registrable trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental Register.
When a mark is comprised entirely of generic wording and some or all of the wording in the mark is the phonetic equivalent of the generic wording, the entire mark may not be disclaimed, even in the proper spelling, and approved for registration on the Supplemental Register. The disclaimer does not render an otherwise unregistrable generic mark registrable. See TMEP §§1213.06 and 1213.08(c).
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin80/gate.exe?state=hrpm0f.2.9&f=doc#tt_T120901c.1209..0
1209.01(c)(i) Test
There is a two-part test used to determine whether a designation is generic: (1) What is the class of goods or services at issue? and (2) Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that class of goods or services? H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test turns upon the primary significance that the term would have to the relevant public..........
II. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO):
The Glossary at uspto.gov defines "generic term" as:
"terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services. These terms are incapable of functioning as trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental Register. Examples include: CLASSES ONLINE for classes provided via the Internet, PIZZA.COM for pizza ordering and delivery services, and LIVE PLANTS for plant nurseries."
III. List of generic and genericized trademarks:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Nevertheless, it is very important to be careful not to fall into the trap of adopting a merely descriptive term lest you find yourself in generic quicksand. An arbitrary mark, e.g., one that does not describe your goods and/or services, is preferable from both a use and registration perspective.
In the meantime, here are a few resources to help you better understand what it means to be generic.
I. Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP):
1209.01(c) Generic Terms
Generic terms are terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1811 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re American Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1832, 1836 (Fed. Cir. 1999). These terms are incapable of functioning as registrable trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental Register.
When a mark is comprised entirely of generic wording and some or all of the wording in the mark is the phonetic equivalent of the generic wording, the entire mark may not be disclaimed, even in the proper spelling, and approved for registration on the Supplemental Register. The disclaimer does not render an otherwise unregistrable generic mark registrable. See TMEP §§1213.06 and 1213.08(c).
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin80/gate.exe?state=hrpm0f.2.9&f=doc#tt_T120901c.1209..0
1209.01(c)(i) Test
There is a two-part test used to determine whether a designation is generic: (1) What is the class of goods or services at issue? and (2) Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that class of goods or services? H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test turns upon the primary significance that the term would have to the relevant public..........
II. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO):
The Glossary at uspto.gov defines "generic term" as:
"terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services. These terms are incapable of functioning as trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental Register. Examples include: CLASSES ONLINE for classes provided via the Internet, PIZZA.COM for pizza ordering and delivery services, and LIVE PLANTS for plant nurseries."
III. List of generic and genericized trademarks:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Winter Trademarks: Lesson 1 Redux
Top of Mammoth Mountain, at 11,053 feet
SCOTT® Series 4 Lightweight Aluminum Ski Poles
Skis, Boots and Poles
Skis and Poles
Winter Trademarks: Lesson 1
Ski poles, as with skis, snowboards, etc. are registrable in International Class #28 as trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Below is an extract of the current online USPTO record for SCOTT® that includes goods in three separate classes, including Class #28. This registration assures the Registrant presumptively valid trademark rights in the U.S. Other benefits also exist for the Registrant. This particular registration has also taken advantage of the optional filing opportunity provided by Section 15 of the Trademark Act which affords "incontestible" status to the Registrant. This is very much recommended and further strengthens the Registrant's exclusive position with respect to its trademark.
Word Mark SCOTT
Goods and Services IC 009. US 026. G & S: safety goggles and face shields, sunglasses and parts therefor. FIRST USE: 19710000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19710000
IC 012. US 019. G & S: bicycles, bicycle parts, motorcycle handgrips. FIRST USE: 19860500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19860500
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: ski hats and ski gloves. FIRST USE: 19720000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19720000
IC 028. US 022. G & S: ski poles and ski pole parts, motorcycle and bicycle gloves, goggles for use in skiing and bicycling. FIRST USE: 19650000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650000
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74174900
Filing Date June 10, 1991
Registration Number 1837348
Registration Date May 24, 1994
Owner (REGISTRANT) SCOTT USA INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 110 LEWIS STREET KETCHUM IDAHO 88340
Prior Registrations 0960780
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20040419.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20040419
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
The Registrant, SCOTT USA INC. also is the owner of multiple other U.S. Federal Trademark Registrations. It is no coincidence that this registration policy is adopted by such companies as Scott USA Inc. The last thing they need is a cheap competitor boosting their product off the fame of the SCOTT® trademark.
-----------------------------------------
Lesson 2 is to get out there and try some of this equipment out.
Remember: "TrademarkEsq is here for you !"
*****************************************
SCOTT® Series 4 Lightweight Aluminum Ski Poles
Skis, Boots and Poles
Skis and Poles
Winter Trademarks: Lesson 1
Ski poles, as with skis, snowboards, etc. are registrable in International Class #28 as trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Below is an extract of the current online USPTO record for SCOTT® that includes goods in three separate classes, including Class #28. This registration assures the Registrant presumptively valid trademark rights in the U.S. Other benefits also exist for the Registrant. This particular registration has also taken advantage of the optional filing opportunity provided by Section 15 of the Trademark Act which affords "incontestible" status to the Registrant. This is very much recommended and further strengthens the Registrant's exclusive position with respect to its trademark.
Word Mark SCOTT
Goods and Services IC 009. US 026. G & S: safety goggles and face shields, sunglasses and parts therefor. FIRST USE: 19710000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19710000
IC 012. US 019. G & S: bicycles, bicycle parts, motorcycle handgrips. FIRST USE: 19860500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19860500
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: ski hats and ski gloves. FIRST USE: 19720000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19720000
IC 028. US 022. G & S: ski poles and ski pole parts, motorcycle and bicycle gloves, goggles for use in skiing and bicycling. FIRST USE: 19650000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650000
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74174900
Filing Date June 10, 1991
Registration Number 1837348
Registration Date May 24, 1994
Owner (REGISTRANT) SCOTT USA INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 110 LEWIS STREET KETCHUM IDAHO 88340
Prior Registrations 0960780
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20040419.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20040419
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
The Registrant, SCOTT USA INC. also is the owner of multiple other U.S. Federal Trademark Registrations. It is no coincidence that this registration policy is adopted by such companies as Scott USA Inc. The last thing they need is a cheap competitor boosting their product off the fame of the SCOTT® trademark.
-----------------------------------------
Lesson 2 is to get out there and try some of this equipment out.
Remember: "TrademarkEsq is here for you !"
*****************************************
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Happy New Year!
Opportunities await close by and beyond the horizon. TrademarkEsq wishes you much success in 2010.
Enthusiasm • Service • Integrity
Blog: TrademarkEsq.blogspot.com
web: www.TrademarkEsq.com
email: maguire@artnet.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)