Posts Tagged: "trademark"

A case that is currently before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), Proceeding No. 92071980, is no run-of-the-mill cancellation petition. Elevated Faith LLC v. GODISGHL, LLC,  concerns the right to register religious symbols and exposes critical flaws in trademark examination; in some ways it might be considered a progeny of Matal v. Tam and Iancu v. Brunetti. Naturally, it also involves a celebrity.

How many types of fruit does one mega-company need to protect its trademarks? Apparently, Apple Inc. believes an image of a pear used in connection with a meal preparation app is too close for comfort and that it is entitled to prevent its use. Bananas, you say? Possibly, but it’s also not uncommon for companies that have invested millions in establishing, promoting and protecting a trademark to take no prisoners in the battle for brand supremacy.

The value of your company’s intellectual property cannot be understated, particularly in the current economic climate. But this should not be news to you, especially if you are in the business of displaying your brand name or logo on merchandise for sale. In that case, you know how important it is to protect your trademarks, so as to thwart the attempts of opportunistic parties that seize upon your IP for their own profit. Case in point: online companies selling apparel featuring the names, logos, and even mascots of high schools and colleges nationwide without any prior authorization to do so. How do businesses like these get away with what seems to be a fundamentally illegal business model—selling knockoff hoodies, tees, and similar spirit wear?

On August 17, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the district court in Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. In particular, the Circuit Court held that the district court’s determination that Costco was liable for trademark infringement and counterfeiting was inappropriate at the summary judgment stage. In November 2012, a customer alerted Tiffany that Costco was selling diamond engagement rings that she believed were being advertised as Tiffany & Co. rings. Costco admitted to selling rings with identifying signs using the phrases “Tiffany setting,” “Tiffany set,” or “Tiffany style,” and in some instances using only the word “Tiffany” for identifying the setting style of the ring. The rings identified by the customer were accompanied by signs reading “Platinum Tiffany.”

Branding goes beyond thinking about a catchy name and color scheme to compose the trademark that will represent the company’s products or services. Today, more than ever, it is imperative to consider the values that the brand communicates because consumers and even commercial partners seek to associate with companies with shared values. Poor branding decisions can be costly in terms of reputation, reduced profits and forfeited commercial partnerships.

Under the Lanham Act, a trademark is any combination of words, names, symbols, or devices that are used to identify and distinguish goods or services and to indicate their source. Am. Express Co. v. Goetz, 515 F.3d 156, 159 (2nd Cir. 2008). Therefore, a trademark, in order to be deserving of protection as such, must be used in such a manner that it designates the source of the goods or services (even if that source is unknown). 15 U.S.C. § 1127. (Unless otherwise indicated, references to “trademarks” are intended to encompass “service marks” as well.)

At a time when small businesses are reeling, the Supreme Court decided to make life even more challenging for startups and mom and pop shops. The Court recently decided that a generic term combined with “.com” or “.net” could be registered as a federal trademark. If that sounds like no big deal to you, you have not thought it through. Based on the Court’s decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. v. Booking.com, someone could register a trademark for autorepair.com. That would mean that Joe of Joe’s Auto Repair would have to get permission, and likely pay a licensing fee, to use the name Joe’s Auto Repair on his website and marketing materials. Multiply that by thousands of other generic business categories and the reality becomes clear.

Since 2014, when a decision of the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office came into force that held trademarks could obtain “high renown” status through a specially-created procedure, there has been a marked increase in such requests in Brazil. However, this increase has also demonstrated that several marks which common sense would say that are well known and recognized by the public have been rejected due to technicalities. This article will tackle the main issues that may arise during the finding of a famous or high renown trademark in Brazil, and how to avoid them.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday that Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. has “a real interest” in cancelling the registration for NAKED for condoms, owned by Naked TM, LLC. While the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) had found that Australian lacked standing to petition for cancellation because “it had contracted away its proprietary rights in its unregistered marks,” the Court held that “a petitioner seeking to cancel a trademark registration establishes an entitlement to bring a cancellation proceeding under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 by demonstrating a real interest in the cancellation proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage regardless of whether petitioner lacks a proprietary interest in an asserted unregistered mark.” Judge Wallach dissented from the majority opinion, which was authored by Judge Reyna.

As previously reported, Washington, D.C.’s professional football team announced recently that it has decided to retire the “Redskins” name and logo. In surveys throughout the Washington, D.C. metro area, three possible replacement names have emerged as favorites among the fans: Warriors, Red Wolves, and Redtails. Armed with the knowledge of the name change and the relative popularity of the possible replacement names, two enterprising individuals have applied to obtain a federal trademark registration for the marks WARRIORS, WASHINGTON RED WOLVES, and WASHINGTON REDTAILS, respectively. Neither applicant appears to be connected to the owners of the Washington D.C. professional football team.

After decades of legal battles in which they ultimately succeeded in maintaining the legal right to federal trademark registration of the “REDSKINS” moniker—through the separate efforts of an Asian band by the name of “The Slants”—Washington, D.C.’s National Football League (NFL) team finally succumbed to pressure to change their name. Faced with the immediate prospect of losing $45 million from a stadium naming rights deal with Federal Express, on July 13, 2020, the team announced it would have a new name and logo. Still to come: the new name and logo.

Along with cat memes, TikTtok videos and electoral manipulation, the Internet is enriching people’s lives with the instant quiz. Whether seeking to gauge one’s resemblance to a Game of Thrones character or satisfaction with an online purchase, the instant online quiz, questionnaire or survey is a powerful mechanism for businesses, governments and nonprofits to learn about potential customers, constituents and supporters. As with anything that can create value, a lawyer’s advice will eventually be sought to learn how to protect the client’s brands and works from appropriation and misuse by third parties. The protectability of a quiz as a species of intellectual property is now before the Southern District of New York in the case of Metabeauty, Inc. v. HelloAva, Inc., et. al., a lawsuit filed by my client Metabeauty, Inc. against a venture-backed online platform that recommends skincare and cosmetic products.

On June 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Blumenthal Distributing v. Herman Miller, Inc. in which the appellate court reversed some parts of a Central District of California ruling on trade dress and trademark infringement claims related to office chairs sold by Herman Miller, and affirmed others. The Ninth Circuit’s decision discusses at length the issue of functionality, an area of trademark law which is undefined by statute and is notable for overturning parts of the district court decision because of an erroneous jury instruction based upon the Ninth Circuit’s own model rules. The decision also includes a partial dissent by Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland on the issue of dilution, with Judge Friedland arguing that Herman Miller hadn’t proven the requisite fame to prevail on its trademark dilution claims.