Exploring Alternative Spellings

Posted on January 29, 2010 by Dan Kelly

I recently came across a catalog for a company that sells "modular floorcovering" -- probably better known as "carpet squares."  (They actually sell more than squares, but I digress.)  The brand?  FLOR.  FLOR?  Cue kneejerk trademark attorney reaction:  "FLOR?  Are you kidding me?  I bet they had a heckuva time getting that registered!"  Well, they didn't, but it served as a good reminder to me to be wary of my "Dr. No" tendencies.

I am about to make a sweeping generalization here, but it seems to me that one of the real or perceived gulfs between marketing and legal types is the former's occasional attraction to words with novel spellings and the latter's repulsion to those same words, at least when applied to goods or services that the word might describe.  Conventional trademark wisdom is that a novel spelling of a word will not save it from being "merely descriptive" of the goods or services with which it is used if purchasers would perceive it as merely descriptive of the goods or services.  Why is this important?  Well, "merely descriptive" words are not immediately entitled to trademark protection.  The owner of such words has to use them as a trademark so that they acquire "distinctiveness" or "secondary meaning," and this process can take five or more years.  In contrast, suggestive words are entitled to immediate trademark protection--they are "inherently distinctive" as trademarks.  (See here for a cheat sheet and overview of these concepts.)

When Interface Global applied to register FLOR as a trademark for use in connection with "modular carpeting and rugs," it was required to show that FLOR had acquired distinctiveness.  In other words, it had to show that when consumers see "FLOR," they actually think of the company that sells modular floorcovering, not just another way to say "floor."  Same thing happened when the original owner of PUR tried to register it for "water filtration units."  Generally, if a company uses a word like this as a mark for five years, exclusively and continuously, that claim alone is generally sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness. 

In the final analysis, novel spellings can be catchy and marketable, but if they are also descriptive, it could take a while to build up strong trademark rights in them. 

For more information, see Steve's recent post on "moist" cake mixes, which gives a good overview of some suggestive trademarks and links to other posts that touch on the line between descriptiveness and suggestiveness. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

Whatever Happened to the Adversarial System?

Posted on October 27, 2009 by Guest Blogger

My job sometimes is rescuing attorneys, often from themselves. Perhaps the quintessential illustration is a comment made by a corporate general counsel recently, whose organization was responsible for a number of victims, including fatalities. Her opening line to me was, “We’re not the empathy department in this company.” However, the reason she was talking to me was that the organization was about to be inundated with lawsuits from survivors, additional victims not yet known, and the unintended negative visibility that generally accompanies these situations, especially when your organization is considered a perpetrator.

Clearly, the adversarial system works in the courtroom—a rigorously controlled process and environment. Outside the courtroom, the adversarial attitude quickly brands one as cold, arrogant, callous, and anti-victim.

One of my clients is among the largest losers in an intellectual property lawsuit involving copyright infringement. For some 25 years, this firm distributed (via the most convenient mechanism available) copies of a small, highly focused financial advisory newsletter to all of its agents, associates, and franchises. At the end of 25 years, the author of the newsletter decided to sue for infringement. When I heard about the case, my first question to the client’s legal department was, “What’s your plan to settle this case?”

I received two immediate responses: “We’re not interested in settling” and “We have a good defense.” “What,” I asked, “could possibly be a defense that passes the straight face test?” The lawyers’ response was that the individuals involved, “waited too long to file a lawsuit.” “They knew all along what this client was doing with the materials.” My response was, “Even as a non-attorney, my guess is they have you dead to rights. Try to get them paid today. It’s only going to get worse if you wait.” The answer was something along the lines of a trial being inevitable.

The lawyer was prophetic and, of course, the trial was worse and sillier than one can possibly imagine. The jury threw the book at my client. The verdict was never appealed even though there was some bluster at the time that, obviously, such a huge jury award would be appealed.

The lesson for all attorneys is getting clearer by the day: Even though our system is adversarial at its root, as the number of cases getting to trial decreases, more and more forces are pushing for settlement. Increasingly, the answer is to find and hire lawyers who are comfortable being empathetic. Being empathetic is the opposite of being adversarial. Empathy means doing things that matter, where actions speak far louder than words. The concept of empathy is often described as “putting yourself in someone’s shoes.” If that other person is a victim, you’ll be causing yourself and your argument, as well as your attempts to settle, extraordinary damage. Better to step back and look at what the “victim” needs that you can provide, promptly, as a means of settlement and resolution.

Ninety-nine cases out of 100 filed will be settled, arbitrated, negotiated, dropped, or dismissed. Having your day in court is getting to be a pretty rare event.

Oh, and did I mention learning how to apologize? We’ll save that for another blog post.

-- James E. Lukaszewski, The Lukaszewski Group Inc.
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,