Posts Tagged ‘Trademark’

Share via email

By: Bill Harding

So your company would like to license its trademark to another company.  Sounds simple, right?

Wrong.  A legal “twilight zone” exists between 1) a licensor adequately policing the licensed use of its trademark, and 2) a franchisor providing significant assistance to or exercising control of a licensee’s business.

A trademark identifies goods to consumers by both their origin and their quality.  The federal Lanham Act requires a licensor of a registered mark to control the quality and uniformity of goods and services associated with the licensed mark to ensure the mark is not used by a licensee in “such a manner as to deceive the public.”  Failure of the trademark owner to exercise sufficient control may constitute abandonment of the mark and result in loss of trademark protection.  A license without sufficient quality controls is termed a “naked” license.

But by taking steps to exercise sufficient control over licensee use of a mark, the licensor may accidentally fashion a trademark license that constitutes an “accidental” franchise agreement.  Such a mistake may be very costly for a mark owner, as applicable franchise laws may impose unexpected registration and/or disclosure requirements on the licensor, and/or may regulate important aspects of the business relationship between the license parties, such as termination and non-renewal of the agreement.  The parties to a trademark license agreement cannot avoid an accidental franchise by calling their agreement by another name or by including provision language that disclaims the existence of a franchise.

Defining “Franchise”

Although federal and state jurisdictions that regulate franchises vary in their approaches, creation of a franchise generally consists of three elements:

1) grant of use of the franchisor’s mark in association with franchisee’s business,

2) a franchise fee paid to the franchisor by the franchisee, and

3) control exerted by the franchisor over the franchisee.

If all three statutory elements are present, a franchise relationship exists regardless of the intentions of the parties.

Be careful out there, aspiring trademark licensors.  Better yet, get a lawyer!

Share via email

Are you a nobody? A celebrity? Not sure? Fortunately for you, it doesn’t matter. You have rights. Specifically, rights to control any commercial use of your name, image, likeness, or some other identifying aspect of identity, limited (under U.S. law) by the First Amendment. See Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953).This “right of publicity” is sometimes referred to as publicity rights or even personality rights.

In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled on your rights of publicity, holding that the First Amendment did not immunize a television station from liability for broadcasting a person’s act (specifically, Hugo Zacchini’s human cannonball act) without consent. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled before or since.

The most common variety of public rights litigation involves use of a celebrity’s images or likeness without their permission. You probably aren’t a celebrity if you haven’t had your name and likeness misappropriated. But it’s not just the living.  The dead are just as likely to be misappropriated. In 2003, John Dillinger’s grandnephew sued Dillinger’s restaurant for using the 1930s gangster and bank robber’s name, image, and likeness. The grandnephew lost because the jurisdiction (Indiana) only enacted its publicity rights statute in 1994.

In another publicized case, a federal judge ruled that Marilyn Monroe’s rights of publicity weren’t protectable in California because she was domiciled in New York when she died. California has tough publicity laws, New York has none for deceased celebrities.

Rights of publicity aren’t without limitations though. The great Jim Brown sued EA Sports using a false endorsement theory under the Lanham Act, but the court held that the First Amendment protects the unauthorized use of a trademark in an artistic work when the mark has artistic relevance to the work and does not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the work. Applying this test, the court found a lack of implied endorsement and held that the First Amendment protected EA in its use of a virtual football player that resembled Mr. Brown.

Publicity rights are generally considered property rights which are assignable (as opposed to personal rights which generally do not survive the owner).

Generally, you have the right to be free from unwarranted publicity or the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of your personality and the publicizing of your private affairs, but only when the public has no legitimate concern. In turn, the public concern exception is limited when the publicity becomes a wrongful intrusion into your private activities in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Share via email

Your company has decided to conduct an audit to take inventory of its intellectual assets (IA), and has an idea of the level of abstraction at which it will identify those assets.  So where should the company start seining for IA information?  The following tips may be helpful.

Start At The Top

Audits are almost never organically-spawned, academic exercises, but instead are typically directed by executive management edict and conducted for a specific business purpose.  The person responsible for spearheading an intellectual asset (IA) audit should check first with the sponsoring executive to learn the rationale behind the project and the desired  “end game” of the effort.  For example, some recent (even active) legal action may have prompted the audit request, so the IA auditor must be prepared to tailor his focus to deliver precisely the litigation support the company needs.  Also, the executive in charge of the business unit to be audited typically has unique insight into the list of key players in the company from whom the auditor will likely need to glean information.  The auditor should get this list early so as to avoid wasting his time and that of others by talking to the wrong people during the audit process.

Just A Formality

If the company can produce proof of intellectual property rights (IPR) recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or by some other domestic or foreign authority, that IP certainly goes on the auditor’s intellectual assets list.  Record of maintenance or annuity fees paid to any recognizing authority is a good clue that IPR may be in place.  However, the IA auditor should not content himself to review just formalities such as grants of patents and registrations of trademarks and copyrights.  For example, a closer look at the file history for a patent may uncover that the company claimed less than it had a right to claim in the patent.  Such potential IPR “left on the table” should be brought to the audit sponsor’s attention.  Also, a quick inspection of the company’s marking practices may reveal that the company is not properly marking its patented products, or not displaying trademark and/or copyright symbols where needed.

Follow The Money

Where the IA auditor finds money changing hands, he will likely find an asset as the subject of that exchange.  Certain sales artifacts, such as license agreements (royalties change hands) or assignment documents (purchase price changes hands), may explicitly define the subject of those exchanges as intellectual assets.  Other sales artifacts may be more subtle.  For example, where the auditor finds product sales invoices and/or service contracts, there are likely intellectual assets such as product designs, service offering names, original creative expressions, and even customer contact information.  The auditor should also review the company’s marketing artifacts (e.g., advertising expenditures, sales literature, and website content) to ascertain what IA the company is trying to sell, even if it has not yet succeeded in doing so.

Meet The Family

The IP auditor should assess the extent of the company’s rights to any IA created by its employees.  First, invention records such as engineering notebooks may help identify which company employees contribute as inventors.  For these employees, review signed employee agreements, paying particular attention to IP ownership and confidentiality clauses.  Also, look for any documentation of explicit transfer of ownership rights via execution of an assignment.  Finally, the IP auditor should check employee termination letters for language governing handling of trade secrets.

Fences and Neighbors

Artifacts that define a company’s relationships with external entities are possible sources of information on intangibles that the company considers intellectual assets.  Nondisclosure agreements (NDA), for example, may identify specific information to be shared (and protected from further disclosure) by the signatories to the agreement.  Correspondence between entities regarding enforcement of ones purported IP rights against the other is a strong clue as to a company’s belief that it owns a particular intellectual asset.  Also, the fact that outside funding (e.g., industry, federal grant, sponsored research) was used during development of an intellectual asset should prompt the IA auditor to investigate the potential that the funding entity may retain some subset of the bundle of rights associated with that IP.

Spreading The Wealth

What a company commits time and money to communicating, both inside and outside the company, is an indicator that the subject of that communication is of value.  How a company communicates regarding its IA, and especially its trade secrets, can impact the extent to which those assets may be legally protected.  The IP auditor should inquire as to the means employed to publicize the details of an asset both outside the company (e.g., publications, seminars, and trade shows) and inside the company (e.g., in-house training, either formal or informal).  For intangibles that the company specifically identifies as not for public disclosure, the IP auditor should assess protection procedures in place, such as use of access controls (e.g., password protection, locked file storage), visitor controls (e.g., temporary badge procedures), and copy controls (e.g., shredding practices).

Whew!  With all these possible sources of input for an audit, the IA auditor needs to prioritize those which promise to best support the ends of the executive sponsor.  More on that next time.

Share via email

Sports fans remember what happened just four months ago, though it seems like four years ago. Jeremy Lin became a phenomenon, and why not? From zero to hero, Harvard-drafted benchwarmer to MVP candidate, and then he was gone. But his brand remains.

And Lin wisely registered his catchphrase with the United States Patent and Trademark Office soon after blowing up on the court. Of course, Lin doesn’t need to trademark anything to use the term on everything from fragrances to aluminum water bottles, but registering a mark allow him to prevent others from using his mark.

Despite Lin’s injury and the fact that he basically hasn’t played since March, the market is there. Like most marketable celebrities, Lin has defended his marks, sending cease and desist letters to those trying to profit from his celebrity in any way imaginable, or maybe just being trademark trolls.

According to the New York Times, the USPTO recently sent five attempted registrants initial refusals, on the basis that they lacked Lin’s consent to register the trademark and convey a false connection to him.

As a distinctive term which inherently references him, Lin basically gets the benefit of the doubt that the term “Linsanity” is his.

The real question is whether Lin has any staying power. Without the benefit of surprise, will Lin be able to outplay opponents on a level court? Will he play in New York next year? The Asian market is ripe for the picking, now that Yao Ming is retired. Will Lin be as popular in Asia as David Hasselfhoff is in Germany, even if his skills are mediocre at best? The appeal in Asia remains strong, and during the Linsanity craze, Coca-Cola Co. added courtside advertisements in Chinese at Madison Square Garden to capitalize on Lin’s appeal.

For marketing purposes, Lin would be wise to stay in New York, though it remains to be seen whether New York is still interested.

 

Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

Catchphrases have become the new gold rush.  Proof in point: when the “one percent” marched on Wall Street, everyone rushed to trademark “Occupy Wall Street.”  When seal team 6 assassinated Osama Bin Laden, Disney rushed to pan up the trademark “Seal Team 6,” and if Disney is doing it, it is to make money.  Recently settled, David Hester of the reality t.v. show Storage Wars and rapper Trey Songz went to the court to see who in fact owned the rights to the catchphrase “YUUUP.”

So what is a catchphrase?  Dictionary.com defines the word as, “a phrase, as a slogan, that comes to be widely and repeatedly used, often with little of the original meaning remaining.”  If you have a group of friends, I am sure a catchphrase has developed between you all.  Now, why would a catchphrase be important to trademark?  Can it be trademarked?

Catchphrases can be trademarked as long as it identifies and distinguishes the goods or services, offered by the owner of the catchphrase, from those of others, and if it indicates the source of the goods or services.  Simply putting the catchphrase on a shirt would not fulfill this requirement though, and would most likely be refused registration due to being merely ornamental.  In order to fulfill the requirements of a trademark or service mark, the catchphrase would need to be displayed on a tag, display associated with the goods or services, etc.  Questions of proper uses of catchphrases as trademarks or services marks would be best answered by a trademark attorney.

Have catchphrases been trademarked before?  Of course.  Below are some catchphrases that you may recognize.

Let’s Get Ready To Rumble” registered in 1995.

That’s Hot” was registered by Paris Hilton in 2007.

Thug Life” was registered by Amaru Entertainment, Inc. (Tupac) in 2011 but was filed for in 1996.

LIFE IS LIKE… A BOX OF CHOCOLATES” was registered by Paramount Pictures in 2012.


Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 18, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 8503 access attempts in the last 7 days.