Posts Tagged ‘trademark office’

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

In a press release issued last week, the USPTO, in cooperation with the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, announced the launching of an online databasewhere U.S. Government Agencies can post information about intellectual property rights training programs that they conduct around the world.

According to Director Kappos, “[t]he database is intended to facilitate more efficient use of limited IPR training resources by sharing training materials among U.S. government agencies, avoiding duplicative programs, and identifying IPR enforcement training deficiencies.”  Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator expects that the “database will permit agencies to enhance the impact of their IPR training, by building on past programs and targeting U.S. government efforts on countries and topics where more training is needed.”

Victoria Espinel

This is just a short update, but, personally, I am happy to see a little coordination among the various governmental entities that operate in the same space.  How do you think this came about?  I would bet that at some point, someone pretty high up in the ranks inquired about some sort of training when he/she found out that the training had just been put on by another agency and they were not informed of it.  Sounds like a “government operation” eh?  Hopefully, this will alleviate some various burdens on the government and one day (yes, I know this is a pipe dream) we will let the USPTO keep the fees that it generates in order to run an even more efficient operation.  If you are wondering, the answer is yes, I will always try to work into every article my anger at the government decision to skim money off the top of the USPTO.

 

Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

When I was growing up, our family has an Apple II+ computer. That’s right, we were pretty advanced. I was fully equipped with a software library of state-of-the-art games to be fed into the double stacked 5.25” high density floppy drives. Of all those games, the ones I remember most include the Stickybear series (education games that apparently no one else seems to remember) and “The Oregon Trail.”

The plot to “The Oregon Trail” is simple, get to Oregon without dying. However, along the way, your caravan is bombarded with starvation, disease, and rivers (never float the ox). I’m not entirely sure what dysentery or typhoid are, but from my experiences with “The Oregon Trail,” I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know.

The popularity of “The Oregon Trail” has continued on over the years. There has been a sequel. Versions have been created for the iPhone, Xbox Live for Windows Phone 7, Nintendo DS, and various websites. Most recently, the game has been brought to Facebook via veteran game studio Zynga, titled “Frontierville’s Oregon Trail.”

The Learning Company, owners of the “THE OREGON TRAIL” trademark, have recently filed suit against Zynga for infringement and dilution of its mark. Notably, the complaint filed by The Learning Company, in paragraph 9, states, “Zynga’s use of ‘OREGON TRAIL’ is likely to cause confusion among consumers, to dilute and tarnish the distinctive quality of The Oregon Trail Mark, and to cause irreparable harm to The Learning Company’s valuable goodwill.”

More enjoyably, paragraph 3 of the complaint states, “Designed to sharpen decision making skills and a sense of responsibility, THE OREGON TRAIL has been used by over 60% of 3rd-5th grade teachers and 40% of 6th-8th grade teachers nationwide to teach students about the perils of the frontier period in American history.”

Admittably, “The Oregon Trail” has taught me to never float the ox and attempt to ford an impassable river. Also, I have learned to watch out for snakebites. Though, to The Learning Company’s credit, I have learned that the path from St. Louis to Oregon is indeed perilous. However, I believe most of the perils that exist today are related to getting out of St. Louis with your life and wallet.

 

Additional reading:

Complaint

Ars Technica

 

Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

It should come at no surprise that Apple is protective of its intellectual properties. Over the last couple years, Apple has filed numerous lawsuits against its competitors in the mobile phone markets. Apple is also in a vicious fight to obtain ownership of a trademark for “app store,” which Apple argues is not generic or descriptive. However, when it comes to Apple’s “Thunderbolt” trademark, the company is quite a bit more willing to share.

Live on the principal register, Apple’s “Thunderbolt” trademark refers to its new high speed data port and protocol. The ports is now included in their new Macbooks, and will likely soon be included in other Apple products.

The thunderbolt interface was developed in collaboration with Intel, under the code name “Light Peak” (which I feel is way more cool than “Thunderbolt), as a data communication protocol to transmit data at a high rate of speed. Presently, the thunderbolt interface allows data communication of up to 10Gb/sec, but the throughput is expected to expand to 100Gb/sec over the next decade.

Since Apple worked closely with Intel to develop this interface, Apple has announced its intent to transfer the rights of the mark to Intel. I suspect Apple will retain a non-revocable license to use the mark for the foreseeable future.

“As part of our collaboration with Apple, they did some of the initial trademark filings,” Intel Senior Communications Manager Dave Salvator reportedly said. “Intel has full rights to the Thunderbolt trademark now and into the future. The Thunderbolt name will be used going forward on all platforms, irrespective of operating system.”

 

More reading:

Apple Insider

Thunderbolt – Wikipedia

 


FRIDAY, MAY 18, 2012

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