Posts Tagged: "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board"

On Wednesday, June 30th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Royal Crown Company, Inc., et. al. v. The Coca-Cola Company which vacated and remanded an earlier decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) regarding the use of “ZERO” trademarks on soft drink beverages marketed by Coca-Cola. The Federal Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Pauline Newman, Kathleen O’Malley and Richard Taranto, found that the TTAB had erred in its legal framing of the question regarding the claimed genericness of Coca-Cola’s mark and failed to determine whether the mark was at least highly descriptive if not generic.

In Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co, the USPTO approved The Coca-Cola Company’s combination marks including the term ZERO, to be used on a variety of beverages, without requiring a disclaimer of the term ZERO. The Royal Crown Company, Inc. and Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. filed oppositions to the “ZERO” marks. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the oppositions, holding that ZERO was not generic for the relevant goods and had acquired distinctiveness. Royal Crown appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

United Trademark Holdings Inc. is attempting to trademark Rapunzel (and likely has plans for other fairy tale princess names) for its line of dolls. Law Professors Rebecca Curtin and Loletta Darden of Suffolk University Law School, along with help from Suffolk’s Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Clinic, filed an opposition to United’s trademark registration on May 9, 2018. In their Notice of Opposition, they argue that the name Rapunzel belongs to the public.  “No company should ever be able to be the only company that can call their doll Rapunzel, because Rapunzel is already in the public domain,” said Curtin, who specializes in intellectual property law. “Rapunzel already belongs to everyone.”

In recent weeks, the U.S. romance publishing industry has been roiling over a trademark issue which has been less-than-affectionately referred to as Cockygate. According to various news reports, romance writer Faleena Hopkins has been asserting a trademark she registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to prevent the use of the word “Cocky” in the titles of adult romance novels which have been published by other writers. This trademark policing campaign has sparked public outcry and has prompted action from industry organizations like the Romance Writers of America (RWA), which has consulted with an intellectual property lawyer to seek advice regarding the issue.

On May 3rd, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a decision in a trademark opposition proceeding which was petitioned by Andre Young, the rapper and record producer better known as Dr. Dre. The rap mogul filed the trademark opposition to challenge the registration of federal trademarks filed by Draion Burch, an obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) medical specialist who had filed applications to protect trademarks related to his nickname, Dr. Drai. The TTAB’s found that, although Dr. Dre’s name has sufficient fame for trademark protection, the opposer did not prove a likelihood of consumer confusion or false suggestion of a connection.

On March 21st, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) filed a formal notice of opposition at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to challenge a federal trademark application filed by Michael P. Chisena of Garden City, NY. The trademark application, U.S. Trademark Application No. 87528440, seeks to protect the use of the standard character mark “HERE COMES THE JUDGE” in commerce on clothing including T-shirts, jerseys, athletic uniforms and caps.

In late December, Beyoncé’s trademark holding company lost out on a motion to amend the TTAB’s standard protective order to make certain information confidential under 37 CFR § 2.120(g). This statute allows parties to make a motion when discovery is sought if they can show good cause that a TTAB order is required to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden. BGK Trademark Holdings sought an order modifying the TTAB’s standard protective order regarding “private information concerning Applicant [BGK Trademark],” specifically “any and all information” related to Beyoncé, daughter Blue Ivy Carter and husband Shawn Carter, aka Jay-Z.

In its latest action in a multi-jurisdictional conflict with a mobile gaming producer, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC filed a complaint for trademark infringement in the Northern District of California on December 21, 2017. The complaint alleges, among other things, trademark infringement against a London-based game developer Ren Ventures Ltd. for using the word SABACC as the name of their iOS and Android mobile game. Other causes of action include copyright infringement, cancellation of the defendant’s trademark, unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and California unfair competition.

Hasbro’s recent application to trademark the scent of Play-Doh is an example of how companies in the digital age market their products and protect their market share by using an complex intellectual property strategies. As more companies begin to implement nontraditional branding into their marketing strategies, they face legal uncertainties of how the law protects this form of intellectual property. Unfortunately, what qualifies as a legitimate scent mark remains opaque. This article will review the requirements of scent trademarks and discuss the complications associated with various aspects of these marks, including (1) the functionary doctrine; (2) the issue of scent subjectivity; (3) administrative and application difficulties; (4) the possibility of scent depletion; and (5) the uncertain benefits of scent trademarks.

Smashburger asserts that In-N-Out stopped using the Triple Triple mark and thus, abandoned its rights, when the triple meat, triple cheese hamburger was rebranded as the 3X3 hamburger over three years ago, the generally understood benchmark for abandonment of rights. And, in my research of In-N-Out’s archived web pages, as far back as 2012, In-N-Out appears to have done exactly what Smashburger asserts – it replaced the Triple Triple hamburger from its Not-So-Secret Menu with the 3X3 hamburger. Magically, references to the Triple Triple mark reappear on its Not-So-Secret Menu in early September of 2017, right after Smashburger sought to cancel In-N-Out’s Triple Triple registration. This leapfrogging of rights may be the saving grace to Smashburger’s rights in its Triple Double mark.

In re N.C. Lottery, Appellant North Carolina Lottery (“N.C. Lottery”) sought to register the mark “FIRST TUESDAY” in connection with lottery services and games to market the introduction of new scratch-off lottery games on the first Tuesday of every month. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denied the registration and N.C. Lottery appealed… The Court affirmed the Board’s decision refusing to register FIRST TUESDAY.

In re i.am.symbolic, llc, William Adams, better known by his stage name “will.i.am”, was refused registration of a Trademark for “I AM” on the ground of a likelihood of confusion with registered marks. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board… Identical registrations for the same or similar goods may present overwhelming evidence of likelihood of confusion, regardless of other factors supporting registration.

William Adams is the well-known front man for the music group The Black Eyed Peas and is known as will.i.am. Adams’ company – i.am.symbolic, llc – already owns trademarks on WILL.I.AM for certain goods and services, and also the mark I AM (typed drawing) for clothing in class 25. The trademark examining attorney refused registration of the standard character trademark I AM on the ground of likelihood of confusion with existing registered trademarks. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. Because the TTAB did not err in its likelihood of confusion conclusion the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Lourie (joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Schall) affirmed.

The Federal Circuit heard the case of Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., where Teresa Earnhardt appealed from the dismissal of its opposition to the trademark registration of EARNHARDT COLLECTION by Kerry Earnhardt, Inc (“KEI”). Teresa Earnhardt is the widow of Dale Earnhardt and the owner of common law rights and trademark registrations for the mark DALE EARNHARDT in typed and stylized form, in connection with various goods and services. Kelly Earnhardt is the co-founder and CEO of KEI, the son of Dale Earnhardt, and the stepson of Teresa Earnhardt.

On June 21st, however, an administrative trademark judge at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) granted Blue Ivy’s motion for early discovery. The discovery is limited to the grounds of no bona fide intent and fraud on the USPTO. Blue Ivy alleges that, although BGK Trademark Holdings is claiming the use of the BLUE IVY CARTER mark for a wide range of goods and services, that there’s no true intent to use the mark in commerce at all.