Posts Tagged: "trademark"

The ‘.bit’ domain, a new decentralized domain structure, has secured a small but loyal following, and could one day change the way brands operate online. .bit registrations are not associated with a name, address, or phone number, but are linked to a cryptographic identity, preserving anonymity. Unlike customary domains – such as ‘.com’ – ‘.bit’ cannot be accessed from traditional web browsers or registered using traditional currency. Instead, individuals attempting to gain access to these domains must first download specialized software that allows access to the sites using Windows browsers, and pay for the registration with a crypto currency called Namecoin.

Based on user input, including at a recent roundtable, the USPTO proposes to amend its current practice to permit amendments in limited circumstances to identifications of goods/services based on changes in the manner or medium by which products and services are offered for sale and provided to consumers due to evolving technology if the underlying content or subject matter has not changed. This change in practice takes into account the goal of preserving trademark registrations and applications in situations where technology in an industry has evolved in such a way that amendment of the goods/services in question would not generate a public-notice problem.

n a memorandum decision handed down July 2, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, most of the plaintiff claims in case 7:13-cv-02880, Leason Ellis LLP v. Patent & Trademark Agency LLC have been allowed to proceed in the face of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The multi-count Federal Complaint filed in April 2013 alleged that the defendants marketed their promotional materials to cause consumers to wrongly believe that it is an official governmental entity. The complaint asserted claims of federal unfair competition under 15 USC 1125(a), federal false advertising under 15 USC 1125(a) and New York statutory law, unfair competition under New York common law, deceptive acts and practices under New York statutory law, and tortious interference with prospective economic relations. The complaint also specifically alleges that the defendants are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

While this decision will be widely cheered by many who are concerned with political correctness, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that from a legal standpoint this decision is clearly wrong… This is not to say that the trademarks in question are not hurtful to some, but the law simply requires direct evidence that the relevant audience, in this case Native Americans, found the term disparaging when the trademarks were actually registered. On this critical question there was simply not competent legal evidence, which is not to say that the term in and of itself isn’t offensive or it hasn’t been used as a racial slur. Based on the appropriate legal standard those things simply are not relevant.

The Supreme Court reversed a decision from the Ninth Circuit that held that within the realm of labeling for food and beverages, a Lanham Act claim asserting that the label is deceptive and misleading is precluded by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This case arose relating to the belief of POM that claims made by the Coca-Cola Company were misleading with respect to a juice blend sold by Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid division. The juice sold by Coca-Cola prominently displays the words “pomegranate blueberry,” but in truth the product contains only .3% pomegranate juice and only .2% blueberry juice.

The United States Federal District Court for the District of Nevada has dismissed a trademark infringement lawsuit against a foreign Internet poker site in a ruling that signals a rather substantial win for Internet businesses at large… Judge Robert C. Jones granted iBus Media Holdings’ motion for dismissal of Best Odds Corp.’s trademark infringement lawsuit. Judge Jones said the plaintiff failed to make a case that Nevada courts had general jurisdiction over the foreign-based iBus Media, citing the Supreme Court’s recent Daimler AG v. Bauman decision, which Jones said ”clarified that the reach of general jurisdiction is narrower than had been supposed in lower courts for many years.”

The fee for a new application filed using the regular Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) application form will be reduced $50, from the current fee of $325 to $275 per class, if the applicant authorizes e-mail communication with the USPTO and agrees to file documents electronically during the prosecution of the application. The fee for an application for renewal of a registration submitted via TEAS will be reduced $100, from $400 per class to $300 per class while the filing fees for trademark applications and renewals filed on paper will remain unchanged.

As part of the Trademark Operation’s continuing series of roundtable discussions to gather stakeholder views on important issues, a roundtable discussion about USPTO’s practice regarding amendments to identifications of goods and services due to technology evolution will be held on Friday, April 11, from 2 – 3 pm. The session will be open to the public and webcast. The event will take place in the Madison Auditorium at the USPTO offices, located at 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

The Court will hear oral argument as follows: on February 26, in two cases on granting (Octane Fitness) and reviewing (Highmark) attorneys’ fee awards; on March 31, in a case (Alice Corp.) on patent eligibility of system and computer-implemented method claims; on April 21, in a case (POM Wonderful) on claims under Section 43 of the Lanham Act challenging labels regulated by the Food and Drug Administration; on April 22, in a case (Aereo) on whether a provider of broadcast television programming over the Internet violates a copyright owner’s public performance right; on April 28, in a case (Nautilus) on the proper standard for finding indefiniteness invalidity for patents; and on April 30, in a case (Limelight) on joint liability for method claim infringement where all of the claimed steps are performed but not by a single entity.

Any action or fee due on Thursday, February 13, will be considered timely on the next succeeding business day on which the USPTO is open. Because the TEAS forms cannot be reprogrammed to accept delayed filings, if customers choose to file tomorrow, they will need to employ workaround procedures, which may include filing petitions. Thus, it is strongly recommended that any submissions due today be filed today, if possible.

But deciding to apply for a federal trademark registration isn’t the end-all-be-all. Frequently a name or mark is selected for a business without a trademark search ever being done. That can be extremely costly if it is later learned that some other individual or company has been already been operating under that name or mark. Even in the situation where no trademark infringement liability attaches, the second comer will need to stop using, give up on any good will already developed and move on. This can be quite costly, just in terms of recalling and revising advertising campaigns, letterhead, business cards and the like. The best advice is, therefore, to always do a trademark search and file for a United States Trademark.

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… A trademark is a significant asset. A trademark not only becomes your company seal, but it is how consumers will relate to your goods or services. If you have high quality goods and services for a reasonable price then customers will associate your company with positive feelings and memories, so the next time they see your trademark they will conjure up in their minds a whole host of positives. This conjuring up of positive feelings, emotions and memories of satisfaction can be powerful.