Posts in Trademark

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.).

Kanye West, ran into some legal trouble when he was sued for trademark infringement by Michael Medina for using the word “Loisaidas” in the title. Medina began using the name “Loisaidas” in 2008 to refer to a Latin band that he had formed. The band originated from Manhattan’s Lower East Side, for which the name came from, as “Loisaidas” is a Spanish slang term for “lower east siders.” … However, the title “Loisaidas” was not found to be explicitly misleading such to induce members of the public to believe the “work” was either created by or about Medina’s music group. In October 2016, Medina appealed the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The lawsuit filed by Lucasfilm names a series of defendants including Michael Brown, also known as Flynn Michael, a resident of Oakland, CA, and the operator of a number of businesses including New York Jedi, Lightsaber Academy as well as Thrills and Skills. The complaint also lists a number of websites with similar names operated by the defendants. Lucasfilm notes that the defendants are in the business of offering lightsaber classes to students for improving their skills with lightsaber equipment and perform as a “Jedi.” For example, the website for New York Jedi offers a series of what it calls “light saber choreo classes” for teens and adults. As the about section of its website states, “while we are not specifically Star Wars-centric, we do rely heavily on many of the principles and training used by that of the Jedi Order.”

The $41.4 million settlement ends a legal clash that had previously led to the largest damages award for corrective advertising ever. The jury verdict was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.) and the settlement ends an appeal filed by U-Haul in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (11th Cir.).

Cubs fans have been able to “fly the W” a number of times this postseason, referring to the win flag that is raised at Wrigley Stadium after every Cubs win. This “W” forms the basis of another TTAB challenge recently filed by the baseball organization. On the same day that it filed a TTAB challenge against CopyClear, the Cubs also filed a petition challenging U.S. Trademark Serial No. 86705124, a mark filed last July 2015 by design firm Laserwave Graphics of New Brunswick, NJ. It covers the use of an illustration including wording which consists of a large stylized “W” within a circle. Laserwave Graphics has registered the mark to be used on watches, including jewelry watches and watch parts, online retail store services featuring watches and providing a website featuring computer application software which can be used to design and purchase watches.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or the Board) Rules of Practice will change on January 14, 2017. The new rules will be applicable to all inter partes (oppositions, cancellations, concurrent use) and ex parte appeal proceedings, including those pending on January 14, 2017. The main changes to be aware of are outlined below:

There has not been a single quarter in which more than 82 lawsuits involving allegations of infringing at least one design patent have been filed in U.S. district court going back to the first quarter of 2011… From the start of 2012 through the third quarter of 2016, a full 36.4 percent of design patent actions also include a claim of trademark infringement. In other patent cases, there is only a 2 percent overlap between patent and trademark claims in the same case.

Legislating for tobacco-style plain packages for confectionery is a disproportionate response to the obesity crisis and strips companies of valuable trademarks, writes the Institute of Economic Affairs’ head of lifestyle economics.

‘Plain packaging’ is a policy which eliminates all branding and visual design elements on products and forces manufacturers to use state-mandated colors and typefaces to create homogenized packaging with no differentiating features. Plain packaging is currently only applied to tobacco products in a handful of countries worldwide, but if health activists have their way that will change.

The report indicates that IP litigation in U.S. district courts is declining across the board. During 2016’s third quarter, U.S. district courts received a total of 1,127 new patent infringement suits. This was greater than the 960 patent infringement cases filed in the first quarter of this year but it was also the third smallest docket in a single quarter going back to the fourth quarter of 2011, before the terms of the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 went into effect. The third quarter of 2015 saw 1,114 patent litigation filed in U.S. courts, so three of the lowest quarters in terms of patent infringement filings since the AIA have come over the past 15 months.

Trademarks differ from copyrights, which protect original artistic or literary works, and patents, which protect inventions. A trademark primarily protects names, logos or symbols that identify a particular creator of goods or provider of services. More specifically, a trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. In most instances the term “trademark” is simply used to refer to what the law calls either a trademark or a service mark, so do not be surprised if you see a service mark (an example would be Roto Rooter) simply referred to as a trademark by judges, lawyers and business people.

Subsidiaries of larger companies who are preparing to file a trademark application may want to think twice before deciding who to list as the Applicant. In April 2016, The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision canceling the trademark registration of a subsidiary because the parent company was the only one using the mark… Given the outcome of this cancellation action, companies with multiple entities should be on alert. Companies should first confirm that the entity actually using and controlling the mark is the one listed on the registration. If not, to avoid cancellation of the trademark, the entities should consider entering into a trademark license or an assignment.

The cover of the October 2010 edition of O prominently features the words “Own Your Power” superimposed over a picture of Oprah. The use of this phrase sparked a trademark infringement case which Oprah has recently defeated on appeal. On September 16th, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2d Cir.) struck down an appeal brought by a party holding trademark rights for the limited use of the phrase “Own Your Power.”

The California state law states that state park concession contracts are prohibited from providing a contracting party with trademark or service mark interests for names associated with a state park venue. Any such contracts offering trademark or service mark interests will be considered void and unenforceable under the terms of this law as of January 1st, 2017. Concessionaires who make a legal claim to trademark rights on names associated with state park resources will be disqualified from further consideration as a bidder on California state park concession contracts.

Based on the question presented in Lee v. Tam, the Supreme Court made clear that its grant of review is only as to the disparagement provision in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), but the outcome of this case will affect the other types of marks excluded by Section 2(a), such as marks that may be viewed as immoral or scandalous. Indeed, in a footnote in its en banc decision the Federal Circuit “recognized…that other portions of § 2 may likewise constitute government regulation of expression based on message, such as the exclusions of immoral or scandalous marks….”