Dialing in on Trademark Abandonment?

What do these photos have in common, besides the fact that they are both from Roadsidepictures' beautiful photostream collection posted on Flickr?
 
Abandoned by Roadsidepictures  Dial Soap, 1960's by Roadsidepictures.
 
Well, one might say, they both illustrate a form of abandonment, an abandoned building on the left, and apparently some abandoned intellectual property in the form of a clock logo and 'round the clock protection tagline on the right (the package of vintage Dial soap apparently was purchased in Sandy, Utah, as late as 2003).
 
With respect to trademark abandonment, at least under U.S. Trademark Law, it is often said, a trademark owner must "use it or lose it." Apparently in that spirit, over the last couple of decades or so, Dial has permitted its various U.S. Trademark Registrations containing the clock logo and 'round the clock protection tagline to become cancelled or to expire, here, hereherehereherehere, and here.
 
If a trademark owner discontinues use of a trademark with an intent not to resume use of the mark, at that very moment, the trademark is immediately abandoned (putting aside the potential issue of "lingering goodwill"). Since U.S. Trademark Law appreciates (or at least anticipates) that there is likely to be debate over the "intent not to resume use" element, legal abandonment is presumed after three consecutive years of non use.
 
A couple of other important points about trademark abandonment are worth noting.
 
Under U.S. Trademark Law, if a trademark registration has been abandoned or permitted to lapse or expire, it doesn't necessarily mean that the underlying common law or unregistered trademark rights have been abandoned -- if the mark remains in "use" there is no trademark abandonment, only relinquishment of the registration. Keep in mind that "use" means "bona fide use" of a trademark "made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark."
 
In addition, trademark abandonment occurs "[w]hen any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark." So, if the trademark owner does something (like misuses its mark) or fails to do something (like enforce its rights against infringers) that causes the mark to become generic or otherwise lose its significance as a trademark, there is legal abandonment of trademark rights
 
So, what often happens in the marketplace after a trademark is abandoned?
 
Others tend to view this as an open door to adopt the same or similar marks: 
Zest Ocean Energy Body Wash

Do you suppose Dial has any regrets in letting the clock logo go?

Continue Reading...

The Rise and Fall of Online Social Networks?

Four weeks ago, I blogged about FaceBook's ill-advised move to allow unique username URLs.  Some time between then and now, FaceBook removed the page where trademark owners could defensively register their marks to prevent others from choosing such marks as user names.  Now, a rights holder's only recourse is to submit this form to report an infringing user name. 

In the course of my research of FaceBook, I have found that actually using FaceBook for affirmatively useful business purposes, such as setting up a business account or creating an ad, can be a mind-numbingly difficult task.  FaceBook's shortcomings, I think, are neatly addressed in this frustrated FaceBook user's help question:  "does anyone know how to actually get help from facebook help?"

Two weeks ago, I read news reports of MySpace's woes.  (And by the way, has anyone ever remarked on the similarities of the MySpace and FaceBook landing pages?)  This week, I finally gave in and actually tried to follow some feeds on Twitter, much to my frustration--it is ridiculously clunky. 

So, much as this may paint me as a new "new media" luddite, I must ask:  What is the fascination with these so-called "social networking" web sites?  As far as I can tell, they are clunky, inefficient, inhospitable time-wasters.  Unless these sites become savvy (and quickly) to some simple principles of usability and customer service, I doubt that any one of them will really become viable and succeed over the long haul.  As illustrated by the likes of Amazon.com, Google, Craigslist, Drudge Report, and others, there are many, many ways to succeed on the Internet, but social networking may not be one of them.

New gTLDs: Internet Chaos?

I am earnestly trying to reserve judgment on the prospect that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN" -- the proverbial "man behind the curtain" of the Internet) is actually going to go through with its roll out of opening new generic top-level domains ("gTLDs") to anyone (a TLD is the thing that comes to the right of the dot in a domain name -- the most famous being COM).  This is no easy task.  Each month some new report comes out that makes the prospect of throwing open TLDs look worse and worse.  As I have observed before, the Internet has a bit of the Wild West to it.  Despite some drawbacks, it has regulated itself fairly well. 

Perhaps the best proxy for the prudence of doing anything is to gauge the number of acronyms it generates:  the fewer, the better.  (By this measure, some of civilization's more dubious achievements include the military, the federal government (or see here), and, of course, the practice of law.)  The debate about ".anythingoes" is relatively new, and the first draft report from the Implementation Recommendation Team (the "IRT") reads like vegetable soup.  The IRT recommends an RPM (rights protection mechanism), a URS (uniform rapid suspension system), a GPML (globally protected marks list), and possibly SERs (sunrise eligibility requirements) in a SDRP (sunrise dispute resolution policy) -- all this (and more!) in a svelte 47 page document complete with numerous footnotes, appendicies, and even a handy flowchart (itself a warning flag):

Don't get me wrong:  if ICANN wants to allow anybody to register any word as a top level domain name, it is worth protecting brand owners.  I'm still struggling with why ICANN is opening up the top-level domain space in the first place.  If ICANN has to create an armada of administrative procedures to protect entities with acknowledged, existing rights, is it something that is really worth doing?

Dr. No and the Parade of Horribles

Dr. No is not only the name of a famous James Bond film, it is the would-be trademark of a dietary supplement company located in San Francisco, it describes a certain kind of politician, and most importantly, for purposes of this inaugural post for Duets Blog, it describes a certain brand of intellectual property lawyer.  One we have a hard time relating to at cocktail parties, by the way.  The underlying personal brand promise for this lawyer is to say “no,” early and often, believing an enormous hourly rate is still justified by citing a multitude of technical and valid legal reasons in support of the unhelpful answer. He is obsessed with saluting to the Parade of Horribles.  He is typically part of the problem, not the solution.  Perhaps repeated frustration with this kind of Dr. No is what motivated one cartoonist to brand (uh, jab) the “trademark attorney” as “the most basic figure," at least in the world of Art. In our world and experience, clients don’t much care to hear all the reasons for “no,” they want, and are willing to pay for, help in legally getting to “yes.”  So, in Dr. No’s world, instead of quoting Renee Zellweger’s famous line “You had me at hello” in the film Jerry Maguire, Dr. No’s clients find themselves saying, all too often, “You lost me at no.”

Seth Godin artfully reminds us in his “Looking for yes” blog post how important getting to “yes” is, especially when “you’re out to provide a service, or organized to deliver a product . . .” Unfortunately, too many lawyers think of themselves as “licensed professionals” with a license to repeat “no” and get in the way, forgetting they are selling a service, too. The world would be a better place if more lawyers adopted Mr. Godin’s sage advice. Why might a lawyer not follow this advice? Laziness? Arrogance? Incompetence? Fear? Maybe. In the legal world, some believe it is simply easier to say “no,” as there is never a shortage of possible reasons to support “no.” Telling a client “no” is considered by Dr. No to be safe advice. After all, clients can’t get into trouble if they don’t act, and if they disregard the “no” advice and get into trouble, Dr. No can always remind, “I told you so.” Actually, neither avenue paves the way for a strong attorney client relationship, much less an effective collaboration. If clients are paralyzed by a lawyer’s advice, they can’t succeed. If a lawyer has to pull out the “I told you so card,” that ought to be a brief representation. Some things are best left unsaid.

Does all this mean a lawyer must be a “rubberstamp” or “doormat” to avoid having Dr. No branded on his or her forehead? Does it mean that a lawyer can never utter the words “no,” “nein,” or “negatory”?  Uh, no, no, no, and no.  Whew!  In our world, it really comes down to trust in the attorney/client relationship. Trust is earned over time with advice that proves helpful. Intellectual property lawyers who demonstrate an ability to know a client’s business well enough to be part of solutions (not simply issue-spotters) are valuable to any organization and deserve a place and important role wherever the creative process occurs. Dr. Nos are a dime a dozen.  If you are a lawyer and you find yourself getting in the way more than facilitating the process, you need a regular dose of Duets Blog.  If you have no formal legal training and your intellectual property lawyer prefers roadblocks over intelligent collaboration, join our conversation on Duets Blog.

Tags: