Category: Trade Dress

Share via email

Using unlicensed trade dress is just not Koo, man.

The look of a product, all by itself, is sometimes the basis for a trademark, sometimes this is referred to as “trade dress”. Trade dress is a form of intellectual property that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signify the source of the product to consumers.

Under the Lanham Act a product’s trade dress is legally protected. For example, the shape, color, and arrangement of the materials, though not the garments themselves, of a children’s clothing line may be protectable trade dress. Similarly, the design of a magazine cover and the appearance and décor of a restaurants may be protectable.

Under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a product’s trade dress can be protected without formal registration with the PTO. In relevant part, section 43(a) states the following:

“Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive [...] as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such an act.”[9]

Often the design of a product is protected by a patent, but sometimes, the appearance of a product or a particular feature of a product can be registered and/or enforced as a trademark.  To distinguish it from a design patent (a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item like ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers, and computer icons). Usually, you have to use the “mark” enough so that it may be inferred that consumers perceive it just as they would a brand name.  The most famous example is probably the Coca-Cola bottle, which was once protected by a design patent, but is now protected by a trademark.

The standard is the same for trade dress and “design” trademarks as all other trademarks. To get trademark protection, the trademark owner must show that the mark is not likely to be confused with other trademarks for items in the same general class. Unlike design patents, these trademarks can last indefinitely as long as they are used in commerce. Nevertheless, items can be covered by both trademarks and design patents.

Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items, even those of different utility than the patented object. Unlike “design” trademarks, the validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized.

Share via email

Gravatar Iconby Mark Malek

Imagine my surprise when I received my daily IP update from Patently-O and read an article noting that the Chippendale Cuffs and Bowtie were not worthy of incontestable trade dress status.  (Incidentally, Professor Dennis Crouch writes the Patently-O blog and I find it to be a very informative intellectual property blogs.  Another recommendation is IPWatchdog written by Gene Quinn.) 

Back to the matter at hand - a link to the opinion from the Federal Circuit can be found here.  This matter arose because Chippendales sought registration of the “Cuffs and Collar” costume as trade dress that is “inherently distinctive.”  In 2003, however, the Examining Attorney at the Trademark Office found that the “Cuffs and Collar” outfit was only entitled to registration because of the mark’s acquired distinctiveness, not because the mark was inherently distinctive.  The real issue, however, revolves around whether or not the mark could be considered incontestable.  A mark can be considered incontestable if it is continuously registered on the Principle Register at the Trademark Office for five years.  Finding that the mark had acquired distinctiveness, instead of being inherently distinctive, essentially adds five years to the clock for Chippendales (a mark can acquire distinctiveness by being registered for five years and, therefore, it would take another five years for the mark to become incontestable). 

As indicated by the Federal Circuit, an incontestable trademark is treated as conclusive evidence of the validity of the trademark, as well as its registration, ownership, and the exclusive right of the owner to use the mark in commerce.  This was very important for Chippendales as they were about to get involved in a trademark infringement action.  When getting into a trademark infringement suit, it is preferable for that the trademark in question have incontestable status.  Although this is, by no means, a requirement, it essentially eliminates one of the steps in litigation.  For example, if you are a trademark owner and you file a trademark infringement suit, you can be sure that one of the first things coming back your way will be a counterclaim requesting that the court invalidate your trademark for any number of reasons.  With incontestable status, however, most of the bullets will be taken out of that gun. 

I found this case to be a bit entertaining and thought that many of our readers – especially you females out there, would enjoy it.  One of the key points that I would like to make with this brief article, however, is that incontestable status is not automatically granted.  It is something that you must request the Trademark Office to issue.  If you are a trademark owner, and your trademark has been issued on the Principle Register for more than five years, please look into whether or not you have requested incontestable status for your trademark.  This can only enhance your protection, especially if you are put in the situation where you will have to litigate to enforce your trademark rights.

Share via email

Gravatar Iconby Mark Malek

Although this happened a few weeks back, I still get a kick out of this story, and I’ve been hearing more and more about it.  The Naked Cowboy (Robert Burck) has sued The Naked Cowgirl (Sandy Kane) for allegedly infringing on his trademark.  I am not too sure what his trademark is, but I suppose it is a nearly naked person strumming a guitar in the middle of a major metropolitan area and generating revenue by getting television coverage on the likes of The Today Show.  Before you ask, the answer is no.  I don’t get it!  A lot of you ladies out there might get it, but not me.

It sure is cold out here….shrinkage???

The Naked Cowboy earned his fame by walking around New York City in nothing but his cowboy boots, cowboy hat and a pair of draws while strumming his guitar and, in the process, entertaining New Yorkers.  He’s not a bad looking man, and he has a body that is ever so slightly nicer than mine (insert fat joke here) so naturally, he was able to make some money off of his bit.  As the saying goes, if you’ve got it, flaunt it.  I’ll stick to writing these articles.  I’ll leave the naked lawyering to someone else.

I don’t see why they can’t co-exist!

I did a quick bit of research and I did not find a registered trademark for “The Naked Cowboy.”  I am truly wondering what the cause of action is here.  Mr. Naked Cowboy is likely asserting common law trademark causes of action, and it attempting to stop someone else from profiting from his unique act.  At this point, it will be up to a court to decide whether or not trademark protection can be afforded for his act.

Share via email

Gravatar Iconby Mark Malek

Pooh Bear

“A day without royalties is like a pot without a single drop of honey left inside.”

A U.S. District Judge dismissed the copyright suit brought by the heirs of the licensee for the Winnie the Pooh character, Stephen Slessinger.  This case has special meaning to us in Florida for a number of reasons.  Of course, the mouse house is a huge source of revenue for us, and Slessinger’s widow, who originally brought the copyright suit against Disney, lived in Tampa for years.  Slessinger originally acquired the rights to our beloved Pooh Bear in 1930 from author, A. A. Milne.  Slessinger’s widow, who lived in Tampa for a number of years, licensed the rights to Pooh to Disney in 1961.

Stephen Slessinger

The Late Mr. Slessinger

Stephen Slessinger, Inc. (SSI) originally sued Disney alleging that it breached the original licensing deal by attempting to avoid paying the family more than $700 Million in royalties.  SSI alleged that Disney comingled revenues generated by Pooh with Disney’s general revenues to avoid paying the royalties.  That suit was dismissed in 2004 when the court ruled that the evidence relied on by SSI was improperly obtained through misconduct by a private investigator.  To be exact, the dismissal of the suit was one of the sanctions issued by the court.

Read more...

Subscribe

Login



SUNDAY, MAY 19, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 8380 access attempts in the last 7 days.