Posts in Trademark

In a dilution claim, a trademark owner asserts that their famous mark is entitled to protection from use that causes harm to the mark’s reputation or distinctiveness. In effect, the trademark owner is saying that the mark is so famous that even use in connection with unrelated goods or services would result in an affiliation with its business and a resulting decrease in the value of the mark. For example, you are inviting a dilution claim if you begin selling McDonalds Cars or Chevy Hamburgers. But recent dismissals of trademark dilution claims at the motion to dismiss stage highlight that plaintiffs must be prepared to show early on that their mark is a “household name” before they can pursue their claims. These decisions also show that defendants are more often turning to this early path to attack an exaggerated claim to fame.

The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) cancellation of two JobDiva service mark registrations—one in whole and the other in part—and remanded for further consideration. As the Court pointed out in its opinion, JobDiva could have avoided the issues in this case by initially registering “marks to identify both software and services performed by software.” Practitioners should take care to register a mark for all goods and services for which the mark may be used.

In late November, the Las Vegas NHL hockey franchise, which will begin playing with the National Hockey League (NHL) in the 2017-18 season, announced that it would be known as the Golden Knights. On December 7th, however, an office action issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office indicated that the USPTO had refused registration of U.S. Trademark Application No. 87147239, which would have protected the use of the standard character mark of “VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS” on entertainment services, specifically professional ice hockey exhibitions.

President-Elect Donald Trump has announced that he will withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on his first day in office. So ends more than five years of often heated negotiations led by President Barack Obama’s administration as part of an overall strategy to strengthen the US position in the Pacific Rim region… Pulling out of the TPP is a missed opportunity for the US to pursue its IPR agenda in the Pacific Rim economies.

Over the past few years we have seen a surge in cyber attacks against well-known organizations, each seemingly larger than the last. As cybercriminals look for innovative ways to penetrate corporate infrastructures, the challenges for brand owners to protect their IP has steadily grown… Most organizations have implemented stringent security protocols to safeguard their IT infrastructure, but conventional security measures don’t provide the critical intelligence needed to analyze cyberattacks that propagate in the Deep Web and Dark Web. It is fundamentally harder to navigate a medium where web pages are unindexed and anonymity can hide criminal activity.

A Chinese judge recently approved a trademark which Trump first applied for in 2006 for the use of “TRUMP” to advertise in China for real-estate-agent services in commercial and residential properties.

Instagram’s TTAB action targets U.S. Trademark Application No. 86663305, which would protect Microsoft’s use of the standard character mark “ACTIONGRAM” on goods including computer software for virtual reality realization, manipulation, immersion and integration of audio, video, text, binary, still images, graphics and multimedia files, as well as computer software for controlling wearable hardware and wearable computer peripherals. The application for this trademark was filed in June 2015. Microsoft is currently offering a beta version of Actiongram, a virtual reality service for Hololens users where users can create holograms which they can share with social contacts.

In recent weeks, Joel Embiid has filed two trademark registration applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, both of which would protect standard character marks for “THE PROCESS”. U.S. Trademark Application No. 87219513, filed on October 28th, would protect the use of “THE PROCESS” on cell phone cases and apparel such as shirts, sweatshirts, sweatpants, shorts, hats and flip flops. U.S. Trademark Application No. 87228057, filed November 7th, would protect the use of the same standard character mark on rubber bracelets, children’s books and non-alcoholic beverages such as pre-bottled Shirley Temple drinks. The trademarks list Embiid as the owner and they appear to have been filed on behalf of Embiid by his agency CAA Sports.

Classic trademarks consist of word or graphic elements, or their two-dimensional combinations. Naturally, they are targeted at one human sense only. Such trademarks can only be perceived by sight. Sight can also help us to perceive non-traditional trademarks such as “color” and shape trademarks. However, apart from sight, man has four other senses: smell, touch, hearing and taste.

You’ve selected a unique trademark, marketed and sold products under the brand, and continue to build up a base of satisfied customers. But then a new company emerges with a very similar trademark, piggybacking on your success. Even your customers are outraged and post comments about your companies’ similar trademarks. You’re delighted, but can you skip the survey and use these internet comments as evidence of confusion? This article addresses the admissibility of internet evidence and its probative value.

Joseph and Adriana Shayota were recently found guilty of manufacturing and selling millions of counterfeit bottles 5-hour ENERGY. They were kingpins in a criminal ring of 11 people charged with the counterfeiting. Eight of the conspirators have already plead guilty and one is a fugitive. Their clandestine factory was located in San Diego, and employed more than 50 workers working two shifts per day. They manufactured about 4.3 million counterfeits, all of which were either consumed or seized by 2012.

A decision to deny trademark registration for two marks to be used on marijuana related goods was handed down in late October by the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. On October 27th, a TTAB judicial panel decided In re JJ206, LLC by refusing to register two trademarks which were being sought by JUJU Joints, a developer of pre-loaded cannabis oil devices. TTAB affirmed trademark examiner decisions that two standard character marks, “POWERED BY JUJU” and “JUJU JOINTS” cannot be registered for federal trademark protection “because Applicant’s identified goods constitute illegal drug paraphernalia under the [Controlled Substances Act].” JUJU Joints was seeking to use the marks in commerce for goods such as smokeless cannabis vaporizing apparatuses and cannabis delivery devices.

What started as a curiosity in Colorado and Washington state in 2012 could have gained the momentum of a juggernaut: marijuana legalization. Now with California and other states passing initiatives to fully legalize recreational marijuana use in November 2016, a new multi-billion-dollar industry could be in the offing. Inventors are already at work on new methods of delivering THC in stronger and safer doses… But with cannabis still on the federal DEA Schedule I of controlled substances what can these idea people do to protect their intellectual property?… Ironically, the USTPO has granted a patent on certain cannabis strains to a California biotech institute even as it has disallowed marijuana-related trademarks.

On November 1st, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (8th Cir.) issued a decision in a case brought by motion picture entertainment company Warner Bros. and appealed by a group of defendants who licensed images culled from publicity material for some of Warner’s most famous entertainment properties. A panel from the 8th Cir. found in favor of Warner Bros. and affirmed an earlier verdict, which has helped to define whether publicity material for films and animated shows are available in the public domain. This decision is the second time that 8th Cir. has issued a judgment in this case.

In the brief, the ABA takes no official opinion on whether the disparagement provisions of the Lanham Act are invalid in the face of constitutionally-protected free speech. The organization does want to correct what it sees as “certain principles of trademark law erroneously set forth by the court of appeals,” however. The ABA argues that Federal Circuit misapplied the basics of U.S. trademark law in confusing the separate concepts of mark validity and mark registrability. Specifically, the Federal Circuit’s decision seemed to indicate to the ABA that a determination of unregistrability for a mark on the principal register would also restrict the ability to use that mark in commerce.