Posts Tagged ‘ip overview’

USPTO Appoints New Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations

Friday, 17 June, 2011 08:48 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

In a press release dated June 15, 2011, the USPTO announced the appointment of Mary Boney Denison as deputy commissioner for trademark operations. Ms. Denison will oversee the examination and processing of applications throughout the trademark operation.  Ms. Denison was one of the founding partners of Manelli Denison & Selter and focused her practice on trademark prosecution and litigation.

This is just another example of the way things are changing in the USPTO for the better.  First we have a director (David Kappos) that has a background in intellectual property as the Chief IP Counsel for IBM, the largest patent filer in the US for as long as I can remember.  Now we have supplemented that experience with a seasoned trademark attorney to run trademark operations.  Things are on the upswing at the USPTO.

 

Apple to Turn Over Thunderbolt Trademark to Intel

Saturday, 04 June, 2011 14:48 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Seems as though every time I turn around, Apple is in the intellectual property news once again.  This time, I understand that Apple will be turning over ownership of the “Thunderbolt” trademark to Intel.

Apple originally filed for the “Thunderbolt” trademark to be used in connection with its new high speed data port.  Intel, however, worked with Apple to develop this new standard.  The deal allows Apple to have unrestricted use of the trademark.  As I was reading through this story, it does not seem as though there was any sort of “dispute” with respect to the trademark.  Instead, it looks as though Apple and Intel worked together on this new standard, and part of Apple’s contribution was to take care of the initial trademark filing.  Of course, any type of intellectual property story with Apple involved always seems like a dispute.

This almost seems like a cross licensing deal, and I am sure that the “Thunderbolt” trademark was not the only piece of intellectual property involved in the deal.  There may have been some patents or patent applications involved, and certainly some copyright issues raised in the licensing deal.

These are some of the things that companies need to think about when entering into collaborative agreements with one another.  Before entering into collaborative agreements with other companies, these types of terms should be agreed upon.  Taking the time to think of these terms and making sure that everything is as clear as possible is a sure way to substantially reduce the likelihood of litigation at a later date.

You will notice that I did not say that litigation could be eliminated.  I wish that were the case, but it is just not feasible.  If someone thinks that they have a right to something, and they have $350 to file a lawsuit (that’s about the going rate for a filing fee for a complaint) then they can sue you.  With the proper agreements in place, however, you will likely have a good defense.

 

 

John Elway demands punk band changes name, still hated by Clevelanders

Sunday, 29 May, 2011 20:05 Written by Scott Nyman 0 Comments
Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

I grew up in a small town situated on the border of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Half of the locals were fans of the Cleveland Browns. The other half were Pittsburgh Steelers fanatics. Raised as a Browns fan, I learned to hate two things, the Steelers and John Elway. The dislike of the Steelers was more or less a friendly exchange of jabs, all in good fun over the local rivalry. The hatred towards John Elway and the Denver Broncos was much more real, beginning in the mid-80’s, particularly after “The Drive.”

Unsurprisingly, I couldn’t pass on the chance to cover the latest actions of that jerk us Clevelanders call, “horse face.” Recently, Mr. Elway has demanded that a local punk band of Fort Collins, Colorado refrain from playing under their current band name, “Elway.” The band seems unmoved by Elway’s threats. They have since released a statement to punknews.org.

“We have no intention of changing the name again. We love the name, regardless of what connotations are inferred by the listener. Surely, if the Dead Kennedys could become one of punk’s most popular bands without incurring litigation, Elway can keep their moniker and continue making so-so music for our dozens of fans to enjoy.”

It’s hard to say with which side the court may rule if this matter were to make it to trial. However, I doubt this issue will ever be argued before a judge. Staff writer and intellectual property attorney John Gentile sums up the situation well in his response to the article. I am in total agreement with his assessment of the financial hurdle the band may face in defending its right to use the mark. Gentile says,

“However, victory in court probably won’t be so much of a threat to the band Elway as money will. Trademark litigation not only involves lawyers fees, but almost always involves experts. In a trademark case, hiring an expert often starts out with a $15,000 retainer and can rapidly increase. Often, larger parties that hold a mark will threaten smaller parties with a similar mark in order to protect their own mark. Knowing that smaller parties can not afford to litigate, the larger party will force the smaller party to change its mark and therefore strengthen its own for future litigation, even if it would have lost in court. If the band Elway chooses to fight the famed footballer, they’ll likely have quite the battle ahead of them. If not, then they’ll likely agree with John Elway that if they change their name, he’ll drop his pending suit.”

A link to the punk news article has been included below:

http://www.punknews.org/article/42773

 

Entrepreneur Magazine a Trademark Bully… to Entrepreneurs

Saturday, 28 May, 2011 08:55 Written by Mark Malek 2 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

I came across a story on the Businessweek Magazine Website that rang my trademark bully alarm.  It seems as though Entrepreneur Magazine, which publishes a magazine geared towards the interests of, wait for it, wait for it – entrepreneurs, is suing  entrepreneurs for trademark infringement.  As I was initially reading the story, I was thinking – ok, this author might not have it right.  Entrepreneur Magazine is probably only really going after folks who are putting out competing magazines and using the “Entrepreneur” trademark for their magazines.  Unfortunately, Paul Barrett did understand and was right on.

Entrepreneur Magazine’s latest victim is Daniel Castro, who operates the website EntrepreneurOlogy.com.  Daniel is described as being a serial entrepreneur, having started several different businesses. EntrepreneurOlogy.com is website that, essentially, promotes Mr. Castro as an aid to entrepreneurs and provides tools to “corporate executives to get back to the basics of entrepreneurship.”  Entrepreneur Magazine does have a trademark for “Entrepreneur,” among many others, as used in relation to “advertising and business services, namely, arranging for the promotion of the goods and services of others by means of a global computer network and other computer online services providers; providing business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating small businesses and permitting customers to obtain information via a global computer network and other computer online service providers and; web advertising services, namely, providing active links to the websites of other.”

Point of order – isn’t this exactly what entrepreneurship is?  At least a part of it?  For example, “providing business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating small businesses.”  Is that not the same as saying “providing business information to entrepreneurs?” Seems to me that, if I were Entrepreneur Magazine, I would be somewhat careful about trying to flex some trademark muscle against folks…especially against my own customer base.  Has this trademark registration been put to the test yet?  Seems to me as though suing your target audience is not a very bright idea.  How are entrepreneurs supposed to trust anything in a magazine for entrepreneurs that involves the advice of “sue your target audience?”

Time to play devil’s advocate.  Let’s say that I am the trademark attorney for Entrepreneur Magazine, and let’s say that my client comes to me with a list of potential infringers.  On that list are three magazine publishers that include the mark “Entrepreneur” in their title, and three websites that are titled “Entrepreneur” and that each provide business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating businesses.  I probably advise my client to ask the magazines to stop immediately.  I probably then tell my client that it is time to do a very in-depth analysis of the websites.  My question to my client is the following: “how else do you think this website should describe their target audience, i.e., how else would you refer to someone that is starting a new business?”  If the answer is anything remotely close to “it wouldn’t make sense to call them anything but entrepreneurs,” then I ask my clients to probably reconsider going after the website, especially if the website merely incorporates the word “entrepreneur” into their title.

If your trademark is the only way to say a particular thing, i.e., your trademark becomes the generic term, then it is not protectable.  For example, the following used to be trademarks: aspirin, trampoline and escalator.  Here are a few that I just can’t believe are still around: Band Aid, Popsicle and Jacuzzi.  Seems to me as though Entrepreneur needs to watch its step here.  I’m not saying that entrepreneur is becoming generic as to magazines for business start ups, I’m just saying that a trademark registration does not give them the ability to remove the word from the lexicon.

 

 

 

Yet Another Despicable Trademark Move

Thursday, 19 May, 2011 11:16 Written by Mark Malek 1 Comment
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Living in Central Florida, the story of the death of young Caylee Anthony, allegedly at the hands of her mother, has really taken over news.  The local media loves the case and, on average, at least between five and seven minutes of every local newscast is riddled with some sort of new development.  Right now the case is in the jury selection phase and, as you can imagine, there is much difficulty in seating a jury.

I normally do not follow the local news.  I find it to be almost disturbing.  Nowadays, it is just a series of this person shot that person, there was an accident that backed up traffic today, something happened at Disney, the weather is beautiful, and sports.  That’s not interesting enough to keep my attention.  Just put ESPN on in the background, and I’m a happy camper.  The Casey Anthony fiasco, however, has caught national attention.

The case really got on my radar about two days ago, as I was getting ready for bed and the local news was on the TV as background noise.  I heard the word “trademark,” which made me look up.  Then I saw Casey Anthony’s parents on the TV and wondered what the TV anchor got wrong.  I rewound the DVR to see what I had missed and, sure enough, the TV anchor did not get it wrong.  There was a trademark issue involving Casey Anthony’s parents (a pair that have not been getting some good press either).

According to this story, the Anthony’s filed a trademark application on Caylee’s name and has sent a demand to Café Press demanding that merchandise bearing the name “Caylee” be removed from the site.  Here are the results of a search I did on the CafePress.com site.

I am not so sure that this story is accurate.  I did a search of the USPTO records to view the application and could not find any trademark application for “Justice for Caylee” anywhere.  Nor could I find any application that included the name “Caylee” as any part of it.  I also did a search of the trademark records for the State of Florida and could not find any applications pending that might relate to this poor girl’s name.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that the article is accurate and that the grandparents of Caylee Anthony have filed a trademark application relating to Caylee’s name.  How are they using this in commerce?  Also, what is so offensive about a group of people that would like to make a little money and, at the same time see some justice done for this child (who I believe was about four years old at the time of her death, was found in a plastic bag dumped in a swamp behind the home of the grandparents, and whose DNA was found in the trunk of her mother’s vehicle)?  I understand that this case is emotional on many different levels and, to tell you the truth, there is no particular side that I support with respect to this trademark disagreement.  The folks who are selling these t-shirts are not exactly in the right (morally), and the grandparents have no trademark rights.

This is a sad case all around, and there is no winner here.  I just can’t believe that in the middle of this entire mess, trademark law has found a way to become an issue.

 

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1146 access attempts in the last 7 days.