Posts in Trademark

Over the past few years we have seen a surge in cyber attacks against well-known organizations, each seemingly larger than the last. As cybercriminals look for innovative ways to penetrate corporate infrastructures, the challenges for brand owners to protect their IP has steadily grown… Most organizations have implemented stringent security protocols to safeguard their IT infrastructure, but conventional security measures don’t provide the critical intelligence needed to analyze cyberattacks that propagate in the Deep Web and Dark Web. It is fundamentally harder to navigate a medium where web pages are unindexed and anonymity can hide criminal activity.

A Chinese judge recently approved a trademark which Trump first applied for in 2006 for the use of “TRUMP” to advertise in China for real-estate-agent services in commercial and residential properties.

Instagram’s TTAB action targets U.S. Trademark Application No. 86663305, which would protect Microsoft’s use of the standard character mark “ACTIONGRAM” on goods including computer software for virtual reality realization, manipulation, immersion and integration of audio, video, text, binary, still images, graphics and multimedia files, as well as computer software for controlling wearable hardware and wearable computer peripherals. The application for this trademark was filed in June 2015. Microsoft is currently offering a beta version of Actiongram, a virtual reality service for Hololens users where users can create holograms which they can share with social contacts.

In recent weeks, Joel Embiid has filed two trademark registration applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, both of which would protect standard character marks for “THE PROCESS”. U.S. Trademark Application No. 87219513, filed on October 28th, would protect the use of “THE PROCESS” on cell phone cases and apparel such as shirts, sweatshirts, sweatpants, shorts, hats and flip flops. U.S. Trademark Application No. 87228057, filed November 7th, would protect the use of the same standard character mark on rubber bracelets, children’s books and non-alcoholic beverages such as pre-bottled Shirley Temple drinks. The trademarks list Embiid as the owner and they appear to have been filed on behalf of Embiid by his agency CAA Sports.

Classic trademarks consist of word or graphic elements, or their two-dimensional combinations. Naturally, they are targeted at one human sense only. Such trademarks can only be perceived by sight. Sight can also help us to perceive non-traditional trademarks such as “color” and shape trademarks. However, apart from sight, man has four other senses: smell, touch, hearing and taste.

You’ve selected a unique trademark, marketed and sold products under the brand, and continue to build up a base of satisfied customers. But then a new company emerges with a very similar trademark, piggybacking on your success. Even your customers are outraged and post comments about your companies’ similar trademarks. You’re delighted, but can you skip the survey and use these internet comments as evidence of confusion? This article addresses the admissibility of internet evidence and its probative value.

Joseph and Adriana Shayota were recently found guilty of manufacturing and selling millions of counterfeit bottles 5-hour ENERGY. They were kingpins in a criminal ring of 11 people charged with the counterfeiting. Eight of the conspirators have already plead guilty and one is a fugitive. Their clandestine factory was located in San Diego, and employed more than 50 workers working two shifts per day. They manufactured about 4.3 million counterfeits, all of which were either consumed or seized by 2012.

A decision to deny trademark registration for two marks to be used on marijuana related goods was handed down in late October by the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. On October 27th, a TTAB judicial panel decided In re JJ206, LLC by refusing to register two trademarks which were being sought by JUJU Joints, a developer of pre-loaded cannabis oil devices. TTAB affirmed trademark examiner decisions that two standard character marks, “POWERED BY JUJU” and “JUJU JOINTS” cannot be registered for federal trademark protection “because Applicant’s identified goods constitute illegal drug paraphernalia under the [Controlled Substances Act].” JUJU Joints was seeking to use the marks in commerce for goods such as smokeless cannabis vaporizing apparatuses and cannabis delivery devices.

What started as a curiosity in Colorado and Washington state in 2012 could have gained the momentum of a juggernaut: marijuana legalization. Now with California and other states passing initiatives to fully legalize recreational marijuana use in November 2016, a new multi-billion-dollar industry could be in the offing. Inventors are already at work on new methods of delivering THC in stronger and safer doses… But with cannabis still on the federal DEA Schedule I of controlled substances what can these idea people do to protect their intellectual property?… Ironically, the USTPO has granted a patent on certain cannabis strains to a California biotech institute even as it has disallowed marijuana-related trademarks.

On November 1st, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (8th Cir.) issued a decision in a case brought by motion picture entertainment company Warner Bros. and appealed by a group of defendants who licensed images culled from publicity material for some of Warner’s most famous entertainment properties. A panel from the 8th Cir. found in favor of Warner Bros. and affirmed an earlier verdict, which has helped to define whether publicity material for films and animated shows are available in the public domain. This decision is the second time that 8th Cir. has issued a judgment in this case.

In the brief, the ABA takes no official opinion on whether the disparagement provisions of the Lanham Act are invalid in the face of constitutionally-protected free speech. The organization does want to correct what it sees as “certain principles of trademark law erroneously set forth by the court of appeals,” however. The ABA argues that Federal Circuit misapplied the basics of U.S. trademark law in confusing the separate concepts of mark validity and mark registrability. Specifically, the Federal Circuit’s decision seemed to indicate to the ABA that a determination of unregistrability for a mark on the principal register would also restrict the ability to use that mark in commerce.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s official website warns trademark owners about private companies who conduct trademark scams. These schemes involve companies, many of which use names intended to confuse people into an association with the USPTO, who make offers for legal services, trademark monitoring services, recording trademarks with U.S. Customs and Border Protection or registering the trademarks in a private registry. On its warning page, the USPTO maintains a list of a couple dozen such companies whose scamming activities are known.

Ohio State alleges that CafePress offers 1,100 Ohio State Buckeyes designs available on a total of 67,300 products. These products infringe upon trademarks held by Ohio State protecting its use of a buckeye flower design on decals and stickers, a large stylized “O”, a similar stylized “O” with the wording “OHIO STATE” running through the center and an illustration of four figurines forming the letters “O-H-I-O” with their arms above their heads. Ohio State also alleges trademark infringement on CafePress merchandise reflecting the persona of Urban Meyer, who has assigned the rights to his name, voice, signature and other rights of persona to the university.

The Federal Circuit reversed the cancellation of two trademarks by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) and remanded for further consideration… “Use in commerce” under the Lanham Act encompasses any activity that falls under Congress’s Commerce Clause power, including in-state sales to an out-of-state resident. Activities that are within such regulatory authority are unlikely to be disqualified as merely “de minimis,” e.g. in economic impact.

Although the studio construction itself seems to be carrying on apace, Valhalla Studios has gotten itself into legal trouble over its chosen name. On October 19th, the studio was named as a defendant in a trademark infringement suit filed by Valhalla Motion Pictures, a California video production company, which is best known for developing and producing the hit television show The Walking Dead. The trademark infringement suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (N.D. Ga.).