Posts Tagged: "trademark law"

The Trademark act of 1946 specifically allows a person to obtain a trademark in her name provided the proposed name mark meets certain criteria. And the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) tells you what those criteria are. As shocking as it may sound, people trademark their names all the time. It’s pretty much standard operating procedure for celebrities and athletes. Granted, it is a bit uncommon for politicians, but it’s not unheard of. Besides, last time I checked, Governor Palin is no longer serving in public office and is more of a public figure anyway, so what’s with the hullabaloo?

The stories of abusive cease and desist orders are legendary. In fact such letters are indeed typically referred to as being “a dime-a-dozen.” Trademark owners and their representatives have long been believed to grossly overstate the rights a trademark conveys when they send letters to unsuspecting and often legally unsophisticated individuals who are immediately petrified and will do nearly anything to resolve the matter. These individuals and small businesses are frequently coerced to give up legal rights they have without justification, which alters their business plans without justifiable reason.

A common misconception is that a website that just advertises your goods or services can be a trademark. It can’t. The domain has to be a unique source indicator all on its own, meaning it has to tell people what your goods or services are on its own. Basically, if your domain name is just an Internet address where your customers can find you, it can’t be registered. It just tells people where to find you. It is merely incidental to your primary business purpose.

While 2010 was quite an eventful year for IP in Australia and New Zealand, this still does not equate to dozens of potential stories to pick from, given the relatively small populations involved. So in the end it was not hard to come up with a “top eight.” As for my selection criteria, I have simply chosen those cases, events and themes that seemed significant to me from a professional perspective, or that captured the attention – and even the imagination – of the broader public.

It is unfortunate for businesses, but China is becoming practically synonymous with intellectual property theft, piracy and counterfeiting. On top of that, many technology companies are learning that doing licensing deals with the Chinese means they turn over the technologies and as soon as the Chinese corporation is capable of employing the technology the sever the relationship and then compete against American companies with American technology, they just don’t have to recoup the research and development costs and they have a cheap labor force.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves and try and pretend that the lack of respect for intellectual property rights is limited to those who seek to share movies, music or make a buck selling knock-off products. Everyone who produces original content on the Internet is at risk of having that content stolen; simply cut and pasted onto some other website or blog. Even if it is not passed off as original content and you do get “credit” the copyist is using your work for their own benefit. They are stealing eyeballs, diverting traffic and likely costing you money. At the very least, they are free riding, which is a hard pill to swallow.

The Apple application for “APP STORE” is currently in opposition proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Here’s the skinny in 4th grade prose. Back in ’08, Apple opened up its first app store. Shortly thereafter, it filed a trademark application for “APP STORE” in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Examiner said “No way! That mark is descriptive!” Apple said “Nu-uh!” Examiner said “Yes huh!” Apple said, “Nu-uh!!!”, and appealed. Examiner said “OK, fine” and published the application for opposition. Then Microsoft said, “No way! That mark is descriptive!”

While Tea Partiers generally oppose federal government intervention, a U.S. judge has agreed to referee a dispute among Florida political activists that questions whether anyone has a trademark or any other intellectual property rights to the “Tea Party” name. Given their anti-establishment fervor, one might also be surprised to hear that a Tea Party group filed for federal registration of a trademark. But in April of this year, Marylynne Cellamare filed an application for TEA PARTY in the USPTO (serial number 85011226). The Examiner rejected the mark in an Office action a month later because the mark was merely descriptive. Ms. Cellamare has not responded. And there’s an application for TEA PARTY PATRIOTS (serial 77777712) that wasn’t flat out rejected, but the Examiner did require a disclaimer to “Tea Party”. The application is now before the TTAB in opposition proceedings. There are many more of these types of applications ranging from clothing to bumper stickers to political activism.

Dilution by blurring slowly whittles away at a trademark’s distinctiveness whereas dilution by tarnishment is an attack on the reputation and positive image of a mark. Here’s the thing: dilution by tarnishment is an entirely separate analysis from your garden variety Likelihood of Confusion analysis. But before click up your heels and scream “Yahtzee!” you should know that it’s really hard to make a tarnishment argument stick so don’t get all antsy to trot this one out. The standard is all over the place because it’s typically analyzed under a state’s dilution laws (if there are any). And I hate to do that lawyer “well, it depends” thing, but in this case, a tarnishment cause of action really does depend on the jurisdiction.

On September 3, 2010, IHOP IP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the owner of various IHOP registered trademarks in the United States, sued the International House of Prayer alleging various trademark infringement theories. The plaintiff IHOP brings two causes of action against the defendant. The first being the claim that the defendant through the use of various IHOP marks is engaging in dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). The second claim is straight trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114. Notably, the plaintiff IHOP did not bring a cause of action alleging likelihood of confusion, which is typically a ubiquitous cause of action in these types of cases.

You have probably had circumstances when you have positively associated with a certain trademark.  Perhaps you were traveling and had the option to eat at one of several restaurants.  You might have preferred a sit-down meal, but you might have opted for McDonald’s or Burger King instead because you are familiar with what you will get, know it is going…

Classic Ink, Inc., owner of Classic Sports Logos brand apparel line and rapidly growing trademark licensing firm, secured a major legal victory in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against American Needle, Inc., and its Red Jacket apparel business on Aug. 6, 2010. After a five-day trial, the seven-member jury returned a unanimous verdict finding American Needle and its Red Jacket apparel business infringed Classic Ink’s trademark rights. Readers may recall that just a few months ago it was American Needle that celebrated an important win, with a win over the National Football League at the United States Supreme Court. See American Needle v. National Football League.

The United States Supreme Court earlier today announced that they will not accept the appeal in the Harjo case, which means that the decision of the the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will stand as the final decision in the long dispute that sought to strip the team of its trademark as a result of the term “Redskin” being offensive and not susceptible of receiving trademark protection.

I just gained another new follower on Twitter (IP_Privacy), and when I went to my Twitter account to follow in return I noticed they had tweeted an article from the Washington Post regarding the FTC setting endorsement rules for bloggers.  It seems that the Federal Trade Commission has decided to update the guidelines relating to the use of endorsements and…

Today I was searching the Internet for some interesting news to write about and I stumbled upon a press release from Burger King regarding its a ¼ pound Double Cheeseburger now being available for only $1. In some markets the ¼ pound Double Cheeseburger has been available for $1 for the past 18 months, but now it is being added…