Tag Archives: trademark

Really? Someone thinks I HEART COVID-19 should be awarded a US trademark registration?

Nancy R. FrandsenBy Nancy R. Frandsen on Posted in Trademark
Aside from I HEART COVID-19 (stylized) being an offensive slogan given the hundreds of thousands of people affected throughout the world by the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. trademark application for this slogan, filed by an entity called Bad Covid, LLC, is likely to fail like most of the other opportunistic trademark filings for terms related … Continue Reading

Trademark Fraud Sparks Rare Bipartisan Action

C. Dennis LoomisBy C. Dennis Loomis on Posted in Trademark
In a political environment in which even a global virus pandemic cannot seem to foster bipartisan legislative cooperation, the growing surge in fraudulent trademark applications – many of which are maturing into issued trademark registrations – has done just that. On March 11, 2020, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Ranking Judiciary Member Doug … Continue Reading

Can Booking.com Trademark Its Company Name? How Will the U.S. Supreme Court Resolve Whether a Generic Term Plus a Top-Level Domain Is Protectable?

By Jason Oliver on Posted in Trademark
The legal battle between Booking.com BV and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) began more than five years ago and concerns whether the online hotel booking company can secure a trademark registration for its name. After filing for trademark protection, Booking.com commenced a federal lawsuit in connection with the USPTO’s refusal to issue a … Continue Reading

Session not Season

Christina MoserBy Christina Moser on Posted in Trademark
When the Supreme Court opens its new session on Oct. 7, one of the cases it will determine, Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., et al. Case No. 2018-2417, is expected to resolve a stark difference among circuits over when a trademark owner is entitled to disgorgement of an infringer’s profits due to an infringing … Continue Reading

USPTO Proposes New Fee Schedule

John MuellerBy John Mueller on Posted in Trademark
On August 29, 2019, the Director of the USPTO notified the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) of the Office’s intent to set or adjust trademark related fees and submitted a preliminary trademark fee proposal for comment. There are multiple timelines for public debate and comment on the proposed new fees, with a tentative implementation date … Continue Reading

Canada: New Trademark Laws Go Into Effect

Kevin BovardBy Kevin Bovard on Posted in Trademark
On June 17, Canada implemented long-awaited changes to its trademark laws. These updates are designed to modernize Canadian trademark practice and bring Canada more in line with international practice. Businesses with brand interests in Canada will want to be aware of these important changes, the most significant of which are described here. Madrid Protocol: Canada … Continue Reading

Protected and Unfiltered. Supreme Court Strikes Down the Lanham Act’s Scandalous and Immoral Restrictions.

Jacqueline LesserBy Jacqueline Lesser on Posted in Trademark
In April at oral argument, the bench grappled with the issue of viewpoint discrimination based on the literal meaning of the statute and the genuine concern that without regulation, profane and obscene language and images will be imprinted with the ®. Ultimately, in a unanimous decision, the court held that the statutory language restricting scandalous and … Continue Reading

Update: Patent and Trademark Fees in Venezuela

John MuellerBy John Mueller on Posted in Trademark
As previously reported on this blog, the issue of payment of fees related to trademark applications/registrations in Venezuela is currently in a state of flux. Specifically, given the current U.S. sanctions generally forbidding U.S. corporations from transacting business with the Venezuelan government, it has been difficult for these U.S. entities to pay fees associated with … Continue Reading

Is it ‘anything goes?’ – The US expansive view of trademarks supports a wide variety of ‘nontraditional trademarks.’

Robert HorowitzBy Robert Horowitz on Posted in Trademark
“Trademark” is broadly defined in Section 45 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1127, as “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof” that identifies and distinguishes goods and indicates source. The same definitional breadth applies to service marks, certification marks and collective membership marks. The Supreme Court has supported such breadth where … Continue Reading

Patent and Trademark Fees in Venezuela

John MuellerBy John Mueller on Posted in Trademark
On Feb. 1, 2019, the Venezuelan Ministry of National Commerce sent a notification that patent and trademark fees shall be paid in the Venezuelan cryptocurrency “PETRO.” HOWEVER, the United States government, by Executive Order 13827 (March 19, 2018), expressly prohibits such transactions by U.S. persons, including individuals and companies, relating to any digital currency, digital … Continue Reading

Trademark Office Takes Tougher Stance on Registering Rights to Colors on Packaging

By Shannon McCue on Posted in Trademark, USPTO Litigation
Trademark law recognizes that a color can be used to identify the source of products and therefore, enjoys protection under trademark law. Let’s test your color brand awareness: • What can Brown do for you? – shipping services • The little Purple pill – gastrointestinal medicine If these colors brought UPS and Nexium to mind, … Continue Reading

GOOGLE Mark Is Not a Victim of Genericide

Carrie LongstaffBy Carrie Longstaff on Posted in Trademark
On May 16, 2017, internet search engine and content provider Google Inc. was handed a win by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Elliot v. Google Inc. The court ruled that the GOOGLE trademark had not become a victim of genericide, unlike other now generic terms such as ASPIRIN, CELLOPHANE … Continue Reading

Registration of “Phantom Marks” Denied

By Charlie Lyu on Posted in Trademark
“Phantom marks” are trademarks that contain a variable element, such as the mark T.MARKEY TRADEMARK EXHIBITION 2***, in which the asterisks represent elements that change to indicate different years. Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 1214.01 (Apr. 2017). While a phantom mark refusal would not be necessary in this example, the Trademark Office generally … Continue Reading

Living it up at the HOTEL CALIFORNIA

By Thomas Hartin on Posted in Trademark
Legendary rock band Eagles, Ltd. (The Eagles), filed suit on May 1 against the owners of the Hotel California Baja LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges trademark infringement and common law unfair competition by the owners, Debbie and John Stewart (owners). The hotel originally opened in … Continue Reading

Court Finds Infringement of THE KRUSTY KRAB Mark

Lesley GrossbergBy Lesley Grossberg on Posted in Trademark
In Viacom International Inc. v. IJR Capital Investments, LLC, 2017 WL 1037294 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2017), Viacom successfully asserted common-law rights in the trademark THE KRUSTY KRAB for a fictional restaurant, which appears in the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants. The defendant, IJR, had filed an intent-to-use trademark application for the mark THE KRUSTY KRAB for … Continue Reading

Protecting a Scent Makes Sense

Erin CaldwellBy Erin Caldwell on Posted in Trademark
Although seldom seen in applications or registrations, a scent that identifies the source of a good or service may be eligible for protection as a trademark. Registration of a scent mark carries many of the same requirements that apply to a word mark or a design mark. The scent must be used in commerce.[i] Also, … Continue Reading

No Bull: Acquired Distinctiveness Is Not a Given

Kevin BovardBy Kevin Bovard on Posted in Trademark
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board recently issued a nonprecedential decision that serves as a good reminder that distinctiveness is not automatically acquired simply by long-standing use. Klickitat Valley Chianina, LLC, Serial No. 76715490 (March 16, 2017). Nor are declarations attesting to exclusive use for five-plus years automatically sufficient to pass a trademark application through … Continue Reading

Court Dismisses Suit Against Coach and Its Counsel for Wrongful Seizure of Website Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

By Suzanne Alton de Eraso on Posted in Trademark
  A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that Coach and its Illinois-based counsel could not be sued for collateral harm caused in a trademark dispute that played out in a federal case in Illinois. See Order, Brenda Buschle v. Coach, Inc. et al., Civil Action … Continue Reading

New TTAB Rules of Practice

By Jessica Watkins on Posted in Trademark
On Jan. 14, 2017, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Rules of Practice were amended in what the United States Patent and Trademark Office described as an effort “to benefit the public by providing for more efficiency and clarity in inter partes and ex parte proceedings.” The first such amendment in roughly nine years, … Continue Reading

Sole Relief from the International Trade Commission

By Kimberly M. Maynard on Posted in Trademark
On June 23, 2016, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued a decision in the closely watched Converse proceeding, invalidating one of Converse’s trademarks for its iconic Chuck Taylor shoes and issuing a broad exclusion order prohibiting the import of any shoes that infringe certain of Converse’s other trademarks. The decision highlights the benefits of … Continue Reading

New Changes to European Trademark Prosecution

Lesley GrossbergBy Lesley Grossberg on Posted in Trademark
As of March 23, 2016, the “Community Trade Mark” (CTM) is going by a new name: the “European Union Trade Mark” (EUTM),  reflecting the evolution of the European Community into the European Union. By force of Regulation No. 2015/2424, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), the body responsible for administering the European … Continue Reading

Amended PTAB Rules to Take Effect on May 2, 2016

By Charlie Lyu on Posted in Patent, Trademark
On May 2, 2016, amended rules governing post-grant proceedings before the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”), including inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”), and covered business methods (“CBM”), will take effect. The rules apply to all currently pending and future proceedings before the PTAB. The primary amendments are: Testimonial Evidence Permitted in Patent … Continue Reading
LexBlog