Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

Boise State, a/k/a the Broncos, a/k/a The Blue, whose teams play on what some call Smurf Turf in Bronco Stadium (not to be confused with Invesco Field at Mile High, where the similarly-colored blue and orange Denver Broncos play their NFL football games on regular green, grass turf):

As interesting as the registration of the blue turf trademark is, the timing of the decision to federally register is as well. Why? On September 9, 2008, the NCAA reported that Division II University of New Haven (located in Connecticut) "adorned their new blue field -- one of only two in the country -- at Ralph F. DellaCamera Jr. Stadium with a 50 x 30-foot Charger logo September 8 in preparation for the return of the UNH football program and membership in the Northeast-10 Conference." Two weeks later, on September 23, 2008, Boise State filed for federal registration of the blue-colored turf trademark, claiming over twenty years of continuous use. Given this timing, is there a battle of smurf turfs likely on the horizon?

If so, here's a question to ponder: Since Boise State didn't seek federal registration until after UNH commenced use of its own blue-colored athletic turf in West Haven, Connecticut, Boise State doesn't enjoy the substantial federal registration benefit of nationwide constructive until its later filing date, so the question becomes, does Boise State have enforceable prior common law rights in West Haven?

Boise State's Bronco Stadium apparently has sported blue-colored artificial turf since 1986, the first being blue-colored AstroTurf (1986-2001), then blue-colored AstroPlay turf (2002-2007), and finally, blue-colored FieldTurf (2008-present). So, might the answer depend on how many Boise State home games have been televised and/or viewed over the years in West Haven, Connecticut, or might it depend on whether The Humanitarian Bowl has been televised and/or viewed in a consistent enough manner in West Haven to acquire distinctiveness and establish prior common law rights there?

While it may be hard to imagine that Boise State home football games have been consistently and sufficiently aired or viewed in Connecticut to establish prior common law rights there, Boise State's Bronco Stadium also has been home to The Humanitarian Bowl since 1997, so there has been more than a decade of post-season bowl-game football played on Boise State's blue-colored turf. Now, how many of those games have been aired or viewed in West Haven, is beyond me.

With respect to validity, might there be a question of some yet-to-be-identified functionality, since one artificial turf manufacturer reports that "blue" is "probably the most popular" color choice for artificial turf? It would be interesting to explore the reason for this popularity.

On a broader note, will Boise State's success in the U.S. Trademark Office lead others to follow along this trademark path?

I, for one, would love to watch the beloved teams from my alma mater, The Iowa Hawkeyes, play football in Kinnick Stadium on a yellow-colored turf -- perhaps canary yellow, and 3M could sponsor a new post-season bowl game (not that we need another), let's call it The Post-It Bowl!

The problem is, of course, in January, and even December, Kinnick Stadium is likely to look rather white no matter what the underlying turf color may be.  

So, once these minor details are satisfied the above non-verbal Fordless logo will be published for opposition, and assuming no Amendment to Allege Use is filed prior to the approval for publication and assuming no third party files a Notice of Opposition, then a Notice of Allowance will issue, which will start the clock for Ford to put in evidence of use through a Statement of Use.

What remains to be seen (until Ford submits a specimen of use) is whether Ford really will use the above blue oval design without the Ford name brand superimposed, as shown in the drawing submitted to the PTO. If Ford ends up submitting evidence of use with the Ford brand name superimposed on the blue oval logo, then it appears unavoidable that Ford will have additional refusals issued, for the reasons previously articulated.

But, if Ford actually puts in use of the Fordless blue oval logo -- as shown in the drawing without the Ford brand name superimposed -- does the PTO's recent failure to challenge inherent distinctiveness mean that no evidence of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning will be required for registration?

If so, given the prevalence and popularity of blue oval logos, how can the Fordless blue oval be considered unique enough to be inherently distinctive?

Stay tuned for more on this as we learn more.

(A) Unknown (unmarked yellow-colored removable adhesive note);

(B) 3M's Post-it brand "Pop-up Notes" (packaging states: The color "Canary Yellow" is a trademark of 3M);

(C) Target's Work.org brand "self-stick removable notes" (no reference to color or trademark);

(D) 3M's Post-it brand "Recycled Notes" (packaging makes no reference to canary yellow color or trademarks);

(E) Highland brand "Self-Stick Removable Notes" (packaging refers to Highland as being a trademark of "Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing" -- no reference to 3M, and no reference to "canary yellow" or color trademarks); and

(F) Office Max's "Self-stick Pop-up Notes" (no reference to color or trademark).

All of this raises a few more questions worth asking:

(1) Since (B) and (D) appear to both be 3M's Canary Yellow, why doesn't 3M mention the trademarked color on packaging for its Recycled Notes? Are the Recylced Notes not Canary Yellow?

(2) Since (A), (C), and (F) closely resemble the yellow shade of 3M's Highland brand (E), does that mean 3M views the Highland color and these others to fall outside the legal scope of protection for the Canary Yellow trademark?

(3) Where should a court draw the line in comparing color shades for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion? How should this be measured, by wavelength, colorimeter device, Pantone matching system? Doesn't a note's clear cellophane wrapper affect one's visual perception of color? What about in-store lighting differences, won't they affect one's visual perception too? How about when outside on billboard advertising, could infringement depend on the daily weather? Sunny days infringing, cloudy days non-infringing? Lastly, what about on-line uses of color? I found that I perceived the above collage of six different color squares differently depending on which computer and monitor I viewed them from.

Has any of this changed your view one way or the other about whether Accountemps needs 3M's permission to run the billboard ad?

I suspect that Ford Motor Company would be happy if your response is:

On July 29, 2009, Ford filed a federal intent-to-use trademark application for the blue oval background design without the word Ford, describing the wordless claimed design mark as "concentric ovals, the outermost oval being a thin blue oval followed by a slightly thicker white oval inside the first blue oval, inside the aforementioned white oval is a completely filled in blue oval" for various motor vehicles and various automotive parts and components.

Curious that Ford didn't file the wordless blue oval design as a trademark already in use, given how long it has been in use with Ford superimposed on the design, and given Section 1202.11 of the Patent and Trademark Office's "Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure" (TMEP), which sets forth the applicable test for registration under these circumstances:

“A background design which is always used in connection with word marks must create a commercial impression on buyers separate and apart from the word marks for the design to be protectible as a separate mark. In deciding whether the design background of a word mark may be separately registered, the essential question is whether or not the background material is or is not inherently distinctive.... If the background portion is inherently distinctive, no proof of secondary meaning need be introduced; if not, such proof is essential.”

"Common geometric shapes, when used as vehicles for the display of word marks, are not regarded as indicators of origin absent evidence of distinctiveness of the design alone."

"Additionally, . . .  color can never be inherently distinctive."

Will Ford be able to prove the wordless blue oval background design is inherently distinctive under this standard? If not, proof of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning will be essential for success. Will Ford be able to establish secondary meaning in the blue oval design as a stand alone mark even though it apparently hasn't been used alone yet?

We'll keep a close eye on this one and let you know how the Ford application progresses. 

While we're on the subject of whether a background design creates a commercial impression on buyers separate and apart from the matter omitted for registration purposes, can you name the source of this background design?

FYI, this claimed mark appears poised to be approved by the Trademark Office and published for opposition as a stand-alone mark, even though it doesn't appear to be literally, physically, or actually standing alone, i.e., without the prancing horse design or brand name. 

Now, fabric bags for holding bottles of distilled spirits and wine have been around for a while. In fact, Crown Royal's iconic purple-colored velvet pouch bag apparently has been distributed in the U.S. since 1964, and the visual appearance of the bag without any wording was federally registered by Diageo as a non-traditional visual trademark in 2006, in the form depicted above on the right. Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated in Wal-Mart v. Samara that product containers and packaging may be considered inherently distinctive, the Crown Royal purple pouch bag was only registered after Diageo made a compelling showing of "secondary meaning," i.e., acquired distinctiveness.

Although Diageo appears to have made no attempt yet to federally register or protect the velvet touch or feel of the Crown Royal pouch bag, American Wholesale Wine & Spirits, Inc., obtained a federal trademark registration toward the end of 2006 for a touch mark comprising "a velvet textured covering on the surface of a bottle of wine." Interestingly, the wine label on file with the Trademark Office shows Khvanchkara (apparently a favorite of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin)as the related name brand to this touch mark, but the word mark is owned by someone else.

Anyway, during prosecution of the "velvet touch" trademark application for wine, the Trademark Office noted the sale of velvet bags for use in carrying wine and distilled spirit bottles, particularly the Crown Royal whiskey bottle example. However, convincing the Trademark Office that the "velvety touch" of the Khvanchkara wine bottle was so unique as to be inherently distinctive, American Wholesale successfully argued the difference between the "loose fitting bag" of Crown Royal and others as compared to how Khvanchkara's "glass bottle is tightly encased within a velvety fabric," and perhaps most importantly, noted: " [T]he FEEL of a LIMP bag is quite different from the FEEL of a TURGID velvety surface attached to a wine bottle." Alrighty then, I suppose that argument ought to limit the scope of the resulting "velvet touch" registration, to tight fitting wine bottle covers confusingly similar to velvet fabric (silk, nylon, acetate, rayon, etc.), right?

Maybe not, at least, in uncontested registration refusals issued by the Trademark Office where the limp/turgid argument doesn't appear on the face of the registration. I was more than a bit surprised to learn of the exceedingly broad scope this registration has enjoyed by at least one Examining Attorney with the U.S. Trademark Office. For example, the Khvanchkara "velvet touch" registration served to bar registration of another company's leather touch mark for wine, describing the claimed mark as: "[A] leather-like textured covering on the surface of a bottle of wine, brandy or grappa." Here was the Trademark Office Examining Attorney's analysis in refusing a leather touch based on the prior velvet touch: "Although the coverings are different materials, both are highly textured and closely cover the glass wine container. The marks are therefore highly similar in appearance . . . . The goods at issue are all wine. Purchasers could mistakenly believe that the goods come from a common source." (Putting aside the obvious tactile differences between leather and velvet, why is the Examining Attorney comparing the "appearance" of the touch marks, shouldn't the "texture and feel" be the appropriate point of comparison?)

In addition, back to the prosecution of the "velvet touch" non-traditional trademark application, you might be interested to know that the Trademark Office warned how functional features of products cannot be protected or registered under any circumstances, and in response, American Wholesale represented "applicant's velvety material has no utilitarian function," and it is "entirely non-functional": "There is no function for applicant's velvety feel of its wine bottles other than to distinguish them from all other wine bottles, which lack a similar feel, and to indicate the source of the wine, from applicant."

Actually, one might wonder about the validity of the "velvet touch" registration for Khvanchkara wine and whether the claimed "velvet touch" functions more to communicate information about a "velvety" characteristic of the wine instead of single source, trademark information, since "velvety" is a known "wine tasting term used to describe the texture of tannin in some red wines." Indeed, online retailer BestinWine.com says this about the very Khvanchkara red wine in question: "The taste is velvety with a blend of vintage flavours." Aaron Linderman's From the Cradle of Wine Blog says this about Khvanchkara red wine too: "The taste is harmonious and velvety with a raspberry flavor and subtle oak tones resulting from the fermentation process." Isn't this somewhat analogous to treating the color yellow as functional and part of the public domain for yellow-colored safety products? If so, to avoid providing one with an unfair competitive advantage over another, shouldn't "velvet touch" wine bottle coverings be available for use in connection with any wine having a "velvety" quality, whether or not the covering is limp, loose, tight, or turgid?