Posts Tagged ‘registered trademark’

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

You may recall that I posted a couple of articles (see here and here)regarding the new Patent Dashboard that was launched by the PTO.  The Patent Dashboard was a visualization tool that allowed you to view the progress of several different factors on the patent side of the PTO.  For example, and the dial that gets the most attention, one can see how the backlog is coming along.  As you may recall, the patent application backlog, at one time, was upwards of 900,000 patent applications.  Yes, 900,000.  That is not a typo.  I am pleased to report after viewing the dashboard just a few minutes ago, that the backlog is now down to a little over 700,000.

Today, on Director Kappos’ blog, in a guest post by the Commissioner for Trademarks, Deborah Cohn, the Trademark Office announced the launch of the Trademark Dashboard.  The Trademark Dashboard can be viewed here.  All I can say is – WOW!  What a difference.  The Trademark Dashboard is geared more towards when an Applicant can expect a first Office Action on their trademark application.  Any guesses?  No?  2.7 months.  Not years, months!  I am floored by that.  I understand that it takes significantly longer to examine a patent application than it does to examine a trademark application, but the disparity between 2.7 months on the trademark side and 25.3 months on the patent side is ridiculous.  By the way, on some technologies, you can only hope, pray and dream to get something as quickly as 25 months.

Thanks Commissioner Cohn for launching the Trademark Dashboard to keep us all updated.  I can only hope that somehow, the PTO is able to keep more of its funds so that it can decrease the pendency of patent applications to try to catch up with the Trademark Office.

 

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

As you may know, after a New York landmark, Tavern on the Green, went into bankruptcy, one of it’s biggest assets, its trademark, became the center of attention.  According to this article, a United States Bankruptcy Court has approved a settlement regarding the dispute over the trademark. The dispute arose between the City of New York and Tavern on the Green Limited Partnership.  I am not too sure what the claim that the City of New York made to the trademark, but I suspect it was to collect past taxes that were not paid and were probably to be discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Under the settlement, the City of New York will own the Tavern on the Green trademark, and will have the right to license the trademark.  Therefore, another company will likely try to reopen the restaurant and pay a license to the City of New York to use the name.  The City of New York will receive 25% of the proceeds from any sale of the name.

The Tavern on the Green is a very famous restaurant in New York.  It was opened in 1934 in Central Park.  It became so famous over the years that it became the premier destination for many of New York’s most prestigious events including Broadway openings and charity events.  This was an interesting case to me because it was the first time (for me at least) that I had ever seen a municipality be interested in a trademark in order to repay a debt.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Walgreens filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Wegmans Food Markets over use of a “W” logo that Walgreens alleged to be so similar in nature that it would likely cause consumer confusion with the “W” logo that was registered as a trademark to Walgreens.  The claim was recently settled, and Wegmans has agreed not to use the “W” logo (source).

In a trademark infringement lawsuit, there is not necessarily a need to prove that actual confusion exists.  In other words, there is no need to show that one consumer was confused as to the source of the goods and services being offered.  Instead, there is a test that can be applied with several factors in order to determine whether or not there is a “likelihood of confusion.”  I came across a good post that points out the test for determining whether or not there exists a likelihood of confusion.  The very best quote in this post notes that when “determining likelihood of confusion, courts evaluate several factors. No one factor is determinative in and of itself, and how important one factor is over another is very case specific.”  Now you can understand why litigation takes so very long and can be so very expensive.  While one side may be arguing the merits and strengths of some of the factors, the other side is arguing how the other factors are not met and that, therefore, there is no infringement.

The factors that are analyzed include whether or not the marks compete with one another, whether or not they are used in the same channels of trade, whether or not the goods are closely related, whether or not the infringer intended to mislead the consumer, the similarity of the marks, whether or not the customers of the company are overlapping and whether or not there has been actual confusion.  Although actual confusion is only one of the factors, I believe it to be somewhat important.  Then again, there is not likely to be actual confusion standing alone, and only one instance of actual confusion is likely not enough to win the day.

Wegmans probably made a good choice.  There has to be a business decision that was made at some point.  I suspect that in the not too recent past, Wegmans, like many companies nowadays, went through some sort of marketing overhaul and someone probably suggested that it may be time to “update the logo.”  I also suspect that the person who suggested such a thing was shot down pretty quickly.  Now, Wegmans can revisit the rebranding.  All in all, this will probably wind up being a good thing for Wegmans – gives them a chance to “reinvent” themselves.  Please stay tuned – I will post more articles on the tests necessary to prove trademark infringement.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

According to an article on Domains.com, Facebook has filed suit against FacebookOfSex.com for trademark infringement.  According to another article on XBiz.com, this is related to the FriendFinder issue that I reported on last week.  I was really wondering about the details of what was going on with the “FriendFinder” trademark.

It seems as though the folks who run FriendFinder.com and AdultFriendFinder.com also run FacebookOfSex.com.  This is apparently one of their chat sites.  So it does not seem as though the fight is over “FriendFinder” as I had originally reported.  In the complaint, Facebook alleges that the launch of FacebookofSex.com was a “calculated scheme to capitalize on the fame of Facebook’s marks.”

For once, I am going to agree with Facebook and take their side on this issue.  When it comes to this lawsuit, I cannot call them trademark bullies.  As you know, I have been critical of Facebook’s tactics in the past.  See my articles here, here, here, and here.  This is not the first time that Facebook has encountered the need to stop the porn industry from using their mark.  You may recall in one of my previous articles that Facebook had to sue Faceporn for trademark infringement and, as of now, the Faceporn page is down.

I tweeted this story earlier this week (feel free to follow me @PTOLawyer) and one of the immediate responses I got back was from my good friend Patrick Anderson (Patrick runs an intellectual property blog – check it out http://gametimeip.com/.  He also tweets @pandersonllc).  Patrick’s response was very accurate – “I’ve never seen the ‘face book of sex’ used in commerce, but that’s one where FB just can’t sit on its hands…” I have to say that I agree with Patrick’s response.  If Facebook value’s their trademark portfolio, which they clearly do, then they have to stop this kind of activity.

I truly cannot think of a legal argument that would give FacebookOfSex.com a leg to stand on.  They are using Facebook’s trademark in its entirety in substantially the same classification, i.e., social media.  Sure these are two very different types of social media, but they are related nonetheless.  The likelihood is small that someone looking for Facebook would be confused if they landed on FacebookOfSex.com and saw some rather graphic pictures.  This trademark argument likely goes more towards dilution, i.e., diluting the value of a very famous trademark.  Facebook is, arguably, one of the more valuable trademarks out there and I believe that the dilution argument will be available for this case.

I will certainly follow this case, but I highly doubt that it gets too far.  I suspect there will be a rather quick settlement reached once FacebookOfSex.com comes to the realization that they are on the wrong side of the law with this one.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Just in case you have somehow forgotten, I am a die hard NC State Wolfpack fan.  As they say, I bleed Wolfpack Red.  When I was going through the dozen of so email updates that I get every day of intellectual property news (yes, I am that boring) my attention was immediately grabbed by an article in the News and Observer (a paper out of Raleigh) indicating that NC State was asserting ownership of the Wolfpack Mascot… that’s right – Mr. Wuf was in peril and NC State was stepping up to defend him.

Apparently, NC State had about enough of Loyola calling their team the Wolfpack.  Attorneys for NC State sent a letter to Loyola informing them that their use of the Wolfpack trademark violated the trademark rights of NC State.  The article did indicate, however, that NC State proposed options to Loyola that would allow Loyola to use “Wolfpack” in connection with Loyola, but not standing alone.  The first thing that came to my mind, however, was the University of Nevada trademark.  Apparently, however, that dispute was resolved already.  Nevada had already entered into an agreement with N.C. State whereby Nevada agreed that it would not use Red and White to show its wolf, and that he wolf would not don a tophat.  <insert several jokes here.>

To figure out the basis of NC State’s claim, I conducted a search using the USPTO website.  This is a hint to all trademark owners, or potential trademark owners out there.  A great place to do some free trademark searching to see if protection for you trademark may be available, or to see what potential competitors may be up to, is the USPTO website.  Anyway, I found two registered trademarks owned by NC State (depicted below, but you have to click on them to really see them).  One is directed to apparel and promoting sports events, and another is directed to merchandise ranging from key chains to decals (many of which I already own but if someone was thinking about getting me a gift for no particular reason, I can always use more Wolfpack gear – as can my kids).  Clearly, NC State uses the Wolfpack trademark in connection with promoting their sports program, as well as the merchandise that goes along with it.

I was absolutely shocked, however, to see the registered trademark below for “Wolfpack” as used in connection with “Educational services in a corporate setting, namely, conducting training, seminars and workshops for others in the field of concurrent engineering to help companies implement concurrent engineering in their manufacturing operations as it relates to the development and improvement of manufactured goods; and distribution of course materials in connection therewith.”  How can this be?  How does someone besides NC State own a trademark for “Wolfpack” for educational services in the field of concurrent engineering?  When I think of the three schools in the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill), there are the other two inferior schools and the Engineering School at NC State!  I guess I was a little surprised to see the NC State attorneys letting that one slide.  This is a product, however, whether or not the trademark owner uses the trademark on the particular goods and services.  For example, in this particular case, NC State must not have been using “Wolfpack” for its educational services.  It’s not as though people run around calling it “Wolfpack Engineering.”

I would like to think, however, that NC State could have a decent trademark dilution claim based on the use of the “Wolfpack” name by someone other than them in connection with educational services.  First and foremost, NC State is an institution of higher learning.  Of course, we all rally behind the sports teams, and the sports teams probably bring in a large chunk of the revenue at the school.  Trademark dilution is a cause of action that is reserved, generally, for “famous” marks.  It is a way for famous trademark owners to stop others from using their trademarks in a manner that would dilute the value of the registered trademark.

I suspect that Loyola will comply with NC State’s demands and enter into an agreement similar to that of Nevada.

On a side note, upon reading finding out about this issue, I immediately tweeted it – you guessed it, I am a tweetaholic.  Twitter has been a great tool for me to keep up to date on intellectual property issues, and to converse with other intellectual property professionals around the world.  Shortly after tweeting my article, I was contacted by an AP reporter writing about the NC State/Loyola trademark dispute.  I conducted a quick interview with Tom Breen and he later posted an article in which I was quoted.  I’ll post an article soon outlining my views on social networking and how you can benefit from it.


Subscribe

Login



FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 12591 access attempts in the last 7 days.