Duets Blog : Trademark Registration

Home > Trademark Registration >

More Godin on Trademark? The Sequel

Posted on March 8, 2010 by Steve Baird

Last week we explored how at least some of Seth Godin's trademark advice is a bit dated.

This week, let's take a close and careful look at his advice concerning trademark registration:

Some lawyers will get all excited and encourage (demand!) that you register your trademark. This involves paying a bunch of money, filing a bunch of forms and earning an ® after your name instead of the ™. While the ® does give you some benefits by the time you get to court, it doesn't actually increase the value of your trademark. And you can wait. So, when you come up with a great name, just ™ it.

Actually, I've never met lawyers who "demand" that their clients register their trademarks. Strongly recommend, yes, and for good reason, yes, but demand, no. That is not a lawyer's role. Even inexperienced trademark lawyers know to explain the costs, benefits, and associated risks of pursuing or foregoing federal registration. Unfortunately, Mr. Godin appears to misapprehend all three.

We already have discussed the many and substantial benefits afforded to those who federally register their trademarks. These go well beyond what you have, "by the time you get to court." Indeed, in some instances, having the ® will avoid the need to go to court altogether, since the registration is actual proof of the claimed right and may be enough to move a squatter off your mark without even resorting to formal legal action. Good luck with that, if all you have done is "just ™ it." Moreover, in other instances, having the ®, can be the difference between continuing to use or expand the use of your trademark and not, so this is certainly more than "some" minimal benefit.

As to the risks, those who don't appreciate the value of a federal registration or the importance of filing prompt registration applications likely aren't aware of or don't understand this significant risk:

Now, some realize the importance of the protection, but in an effort to save or defer cost, they have considered holding off on filing a federal trademark application -- to see how the product does -- before making a final decision on the filing. If you or someone you know falls into this category, while I sympathize with your and their efforts to manage a tight budget, understand another risk that goes a step further than the risks already covered in the above-linked Create Magazine article.

To do so, after you have conducted the appropriate due diligence to clear use of the new name and mark, ask yourself how long it will take to get your product with the new name and brand in the stream of commerce and in the marketplace. Without the important benefit of constructive use relating back to the filing date of the federal trademark application, it is important to realize that your investment in preparing for the product launch may be lost altogether if another person or company files an intent-to-use trademark application, for a confusingly similar mark, even one day before you get to market with your newly named product. If this happens you and they may very well "see how the product does" with another name.

Now, as to the issue of cost, given the substantial benefits conferred and the substantial risks avoided, when those are recognized and understood, the financial cost of a federal trademark application seems well worth the $275 governmental filing fee toward the creation of an intellectual property asset of national scope.

Last, as to Mr. Godin's assertion that federal registration "doesn't actually increase the value of your trademark," he is simply wrong, so there you go. It stands to reason that national rights are worth more than local rights. Ask any party to a franchise agreement or even their informed bankers who loan money based on them.

Without a federal registration, rights are limited in geographic scope to those areas of operation where the use has been substantial enough to generate common law trademark rights. With a federal registration the trademark owner is deemed to have used his or her mark in every sliver, corner, and county of the U.S., as of the filing date, even though the trademark may never blanket the country with their goods or services. So, one need only consider the world of franchise relationships and trademark licenses to appreciate the enormous power and value a federal trademark registration brings to the table and to the bank.

Some other time, I'll explain some of the reasons for using the ™ symbol, but suffice it to say for now, doing so confers no legal rights. So, "when you come up with a great name" and you want to use it and have the best chance of expanding that use over time, as your business continues to grow, don't "just ™ it", instead, seek federal registration at the earliest possible opportunity.

Tags: Articles, Common Law Rights, Common Marketing Pitfalls, Franchise, Godin on Trademark, Seth Godin, Trademark Attorney, Trademark License, Trademark Notice Symbol, Trademark Priority, Trademark Registration, Trademark Types, Trademarking

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.

Seth Godin on Trademark?

Posted on March 1, 2010 by Steve Baird

Seth Godin has an amazing knack for creating and spreading ideas that matter, mostly really good ones, by the way. I always look forward to his daily riffs and I have been known to spread some of his important ideas too when they overlap with things I happen to care a lot about.

When it comes to Mr. Godin's trademark advice, however, I'm not feeling it, sorry (that wasn't an apology either). Some of it is, well, lacking an indispensable quality. Even when it is accompanied by this witty disclaimer: "I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. If you rely on my legal advice, you're getting exactly what you paid for."

The problem is, sometimes you end up getting much less than you anticipated and actually end up much worse off, when you follow down even a "free" path based on misunderstandings and misconceptions, at least as they relate to one's legal rights.

I'll never forget one evening watching Geraldo Live during the O.J. trial, more than fifteen years ago, as a young trademark lawyer. There was quite a stir about some trademark applications Mr. Simpson had filed for O.J. Simpson, Juice, and O.J., around the time of O.J. Simpson being charged with the murder of Nicole Simpson. I recall one of Simpson's defense lawyers, the brilliant constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz, rebuffing criticism about the trademark filings, unwittingly contending that Simpson never intended to use or benefit from those applications, he simply filed them to make sure no one else could. My jaw dropped when I heard this, because it provided a legal basis to immediately invalidate each one of the applications. In addition, had anyone followed this defensive "legal advice," their trademark filings would have been wasted money and considered invalid and void ab initio, since U.S. trademark law requires that an applicant must have a bona fide intention to use the mark on each and every good and service listed in the application.

Back to Godin on Trademark*, and even more recently, a couple of months ago Seth Godin wrote about how to protect your ideas in the digital age:

One way is to misuse trademark law. With the help of search engines, greedy lawyers who charge by the letter are busy sending claim letters to anyone who even comes close to using a word or phrase they believe their client 'owns'. News flash: trademark law is designed to make it clear who makes a good or a service. It's a mark we put on something we create to indicate the source of the thing, not the inventor of a word or even a symbol.

While there are certainly some greedy trademark lawyers in the world, and some that overreach on behalf of their client brand owners, even honorable and ethical trademark attorneys worth their hourly rate know that federal protection against dilution for truly famous marks was added to U.S. trademark law about fifteen years ago. At least for marks satisfying the difficult fame standard, these kinds of trademarks come darn close to owning the brand name in gross, that is, in connection with any goods or services.

For the garden variety and non-famous trademark, the scope of rights is defined by whether or not there is a Likelihood of Confusion.

With respect to what trademark law was designed for, and while I don't consider this to be a news flash any longer, well prior to dilution protection being added, U.S. trademark law was amended to make clear that much more than confusion as to source is covered. All the way back in 1962 the Lanham Trademark Act was amended by striking language requiring confusion, mistake or deception of "purchasers as to the source of origin of such goods and services." Moreover, a much broader scope of confusion protection was codified in 1989 in Lanham Act Section 43(a), which protects against trademark likelihood of confusion not only as to source, but as to affiliation, connection, sponsorship, association, and/or approval. This additional scope of trademark protection makes perfect sense given the current commercial realities of trademark licensing, franchises, co-branding, affiliate marketing, and OEM relationships.

I'm not saying Seth Godin's opinions about trademarks are Out of Bounds, I'm simply saying some of them are out of date.

With a little luck, and assuming I can get in enough time in front of my Stuart Smalley mirror between now and next week, I'll explore another misconception or misgiving it appears Mr. Godin has about the registration of trademarks:

Some lawyers will get all excited and encourage (demand!) that you register your trademark. This involves paying a bunch of money, filing a bunch of forms and earning an ® after your name instead of the ™. While the ® does give you some benefits by the time you get to court, it doesn't actually increase the value of your trademark. And you can wait. So, when you come up with a great name, just ™ it.

So, stay tuned.

What a Crock, Pot That Is . . .

Posted on February 14, 2010 by Steve Baird

We're not talking the foamed footwear Crocs® that Randall Hull wrote about in his What a Croc! post from a couple of weeks ago. Instead, we're talking slow cookers -- on this snow-capped Valentine's Day in the Twin Cities.

Every once in a while a stroll down the grocery store aisle leaves me surprised when I spot a federal registration symbol next to a word that I thought was a generic term for the goods or services in question. Today was such a day, when I noticed Sunbeam's Crock-Pot® The Original Slow Cooker appliance on the store shelf. Apparently I'm not alone in my surprise at the trademark status, given Wikipedia's acknowledgment that Crock-Pot is a trademark "often used generically in the USA" -- and Slo-Cooker is a trademark "often used generically in the UK."

It appears the Crock-Pot® trademark was originally registered back in 1972, and a couple of years ago federally-registered protection for the trademark was extended into a number of different classes of goods at the U.S. Trademark Office for a variety of different products, including food, and some cooking accessories. Last June, this logo was federally registered by Sunbeam, but it specifically disclaimed any exclusive rights in the descriptive phrase "The Original Slow Cooker":

I'm left wondering whether this is like the Rollerblade example, where it took the owner of the Rollerblade brand an entire decade to battle genericide by developing a commercially acceptable generic term (in-line skates) to couple with the brand.

Here are a few questions for marketing types to ponder and discuss: If you're Sunbeam, owner of the federally-registered Crock-Pot® trademark, do you care if retailers and your direct competitors call their competing products a Crock-Pot too? What about Search Engines selling Crock-Pot as a keyword, do you care about that? If so, how much do you care? Is it important enough to spend dollars on stopping these kinds of actions?

Just so no one is left out, here, for you trademark types out there, what steps would you take to avoid having the Crock-Pot® trademark invalidated on genericness grounds?

Same drill for the Bundt® trademark that Dan wrote about prior to the holidays.

Question Mark Brands?

Posted on February 8, 2010 by Steve Baird

A couple of months ago I blogged about Branding Exclamations!

Before that I blogged about Increasingly Intense Ellipsis Branding . . . .

Now, it appears I must revisit the subject of punctuation mark branding given Cadbury Adams' new Mega Mystery Stride brand gum, prominently featuring a question mark logo on the packaging where the S logo normally appears.

The mystery apparently surrounds the presently undisclosed flavor of the gum. The unknown flavor appears to be part of Stride's claimed Ridiculously Long Lasting Gum, not to be confused, of course, with Wrigley's Curiously Strong mints and gum (Altoids).

Anyway, my daughter brought a pack of the ? gum home and said, "Daddy, you should blog about this," so now you know the inspiration for my curiously strong or ridiculously long attention to this subject.

I fully expected to find a pending trademark application filed by Cadbury Adams for the "?" symbol, given its ridiculously flavorful interest in single letter chewing gum brands. To my surprise, however, I found none, at least yet.

As you might have imagined, I did find some "?" trademarks of others, as shown below. Do you recognize any of them? Each "?" image is linked to the corresponding trademark record at the U.S. Trademark Office.

Turns out, there is a ? trademark battle heating up too. Not in the world of confections, but rather in the world of fashion. Just days ago, Guess IP Holder L.P., owner of the famous Guess brand, filed a Trademark Opposition against one of the above Question Mark logos, guess which one?

It asserted ownership of these federally-registered trademarks:

But not any of these, for some reason:

To find out, click here for a link to a copy of the Notice of Opposition.

Any more questions?

What a Croc!

Posted on February 2, 2010 by Guest Blogger

It's not every day you get a chance to use that phrase in a headline. But, what may become known as the "The Cayman Kerfuffle", presents the perfect opportunity.

Would a reasonable person find these confusingly similar?

$51,000 Blue Cayman $30 Blue Cayman

Let's see, one is a sleek, pricey, well-engineered, high performance sports car that is available in a variety of colors, the other is a stubby, inexpensive, molded plastic clog-like sandal that is also available in a variety of colors. Hmmm.

Even though the Porsche vs. Crocs dust up was discussed widely in November 2009, the seeming inanity still grinds on my nerves. So I can't resist another airing.

If you missed the coverage, here is the kerfuffle catalyst from the Crocs, Inc. Form 10-Q:

"On May 11, 2009, Crocs Europe B.V. received a letter from Dr. Ing. H.c.F. Porsche AG ("Porsche") claiming that the Company's use of the "Cayman" shoe model designator infringes upon their Community Trademark Registration of the mark "CAYMAN" in class 25. Porsche is requesting that Crocs Europe B.V. immediately cease and desist use of the Cayman mark and pay Porsche's attorney's fees in conjunction with the issuance of the notice letter. On July 30, 2009 the Company was served with notice of an injunction against Crocs Europe BV's use of the Cayman mark in Germany. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims."

Granted, Porsche has a registered trademark for "Cayman" in several international classes including 025, which does encompass footwear, and sells a line of Porsche Design shoes, although, apparently, not under the Cayman label.

I might understand Porsche being embarrassed by the possible association with the popular foam resin clogs spotted on the feet of celeb-kinder in Hollywood, South Beach, and other trendy locales. But infringement? Seriously? Shouldn't Porsche be more embarrassed for making this an issue? Likelihood of confusion is doubtful, unless Porsche dramatically changes its fashion strategy.

Realistically, few people will confuse Crocs Cayman clogs for a Porsche Cayman sports car or one of their designer driving shoes. Fewer still will think they originate from Porsche. Should they, a quick check of the Crocs logo on the shoe itself would correct any incertitude.

Several thoughts arise: Since the Crocs Cayman line was available commercially as early as 2004, five years before the registration issue date of April 2009 for Porsche, does Crocs have prior rights? Should International Truck Intellectual Property Company, owner of the Cayman trademark in International Class 012, which includes sports cars, seek redress from Porsche for infringement? Should Lacoste file an amicus brief since they have an oblique interest? After all, a Cayman is a type of alligator, and should Porsche prevail -- I don't see how, but lets pretend – based on their interpretation of infringement and confusion, the Lacoste logo, shown below, would be a likely next target.

Stay with me on this. It is probable that people driving Porsche Caymans could also be wearing Lacoste clothing, so confusion of origin is surely immanent. Hey, is that a Cayman polo shirt you're wearing?

On the subject of confusion, perhaps the Cayman Islands should pursue Porsche and Crocs for infringement. It is likely to find both products on the Islands, even at the same time and place, and wouldn't the Cayman Islands have prior rights, if we follow the labyrinthic logic in this argument? Toss in people wearing Lacoste fashions, and since most can't tell a Cayman from a run of the pond alligator, it could start a whole reptilian-brand confusion-fest and who knows where that would lead!

This could become a Trademark Infringement Smackdown with, say, Crocodile Dundee headlining. Although, come to think of it, this has certain "The Real Housewives of Intellectual Property" (surely an oxymoron) qualities to it and could spawn a new reality series on Bravo. The notion is no more ridiculous than the Porsche accusation -- and indubitably more entertaining.

OK, my tongue is tired of being in my cheek.

The old maxim "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" seems apropos. The ill will engendered by overly aggressive enforcement, where likelihood of harm is not apparent, is damaging to a brand, even one as famous and resilient as Porsche. It will likely appear to consumers as needless bullying. That perception can cost far more to rectify than any possible impact of the perceived infringement.

Who's the likely winner in this spat? Certainly not Porsche. Crocs stands to gain from the publicity generated by this action. It is not exactly the way a company wants to gain visibility, but as a creative guy managing brands, I'd take what I get and spin it into branding silk – at the expense of Porsche, of course.

Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®

Lightning Strikes How Many Times?

Posted on January 9, 2010 by Steve Baird

I have heard that lightning only strikes once in the same place, but apparently that is only a myth. Indeed, the number of lightning bolt logos that have "hit" the mail room, over the years, at the U.S. Trademark Office appear to provide additional evidence for disproving the popular myth.

So, what does that say, if anything, about the scope of rights associated with the non-verbal lightning bolt logos shown below, none of which are owned by the same entity, and all of which have been registered or at least approved for publication by the U.S. Trademark Office? And, how many of them do you recognize anyway?

In addition to the link for each logo that connects to the relevant trademark information at the USPTO, here is a numbered hint for each, and the answer key is below the jump:

golf ball brand
golf club brand
Wyeth is the owner
protective eye wear brand
professional football club is the owner
PulseSwitch is the owner
Gatorade's lightning bolt
the lightning bolt logo that Gatorade filed an opposition against
firearm trigger brand
an NFL team, the NFL, and the Air-force have filed extensions of time to oppose
semiconductor brand
athletic competitions at the high-school level

a. b. c.

d.e.f. g.

h.i.j.k.l.

For my previous discussion of Gatorade's Lightning Bolt Logo, see here.

Holiday Inn Puts Dimmer on Non-Traditional Lighting Trademarks

Posted on December 12, 2009 by Steve Baird

A couple of months ago there was quite a buzz about Holiday Inn's projected $4 million annual savings by moving to a leaner and greener direction with their adoption of LED lighting on exterior signage.

As you may recall, back in June we blogged about Holiday Inn's interesting effort to federally register a pair of non-traditional lighting trademarks, one employing a green-colored lighting scheme and the other employing a blue lighting scheme:

We had noted it would likely take a strong showing of "look for" advertising to overcome the registration refusals initially lodged by the Trademark Office.

Instead of attempting to overcome the registration refusals, however, Holiday Inn apparently has opted for a leaner approach and cost savings on the trademark front too, settling for Supplemental Registrations, a much dimmer form of protection -- offering no legal presumptions of validity, ownership, or exclusive right to use.

About the only meaningful benefit of a Supplemental Registration for a service mark is that it blocks and prevents others from obtaining Principal Registration for confusingly similar marks. Here are the official drawings associated with those newly issued Supplemental Registrations:

Mark Image

In addition to amending the applications to seek registration on the Supplemental Register, Holiday Inn tweaked the description of the marks to read as follows (for the green mark):

The mark consists of green lighting formed by four light fixtures placed in a symmetrical fashion near the entryway of the building. One set of two green lights is evenly placed on columns to the right and left of the entryway and direct the green lighting downward thereby casting a green shadow down the length of the column; while the other set of two green lights is evenly placed on the building wall above the entryway and direct the green lighting upwards, casting a green shadow up the length of the wall and roof overhang. The matter shown by the dotted lines is not a part of the mark and serves only to show the position of the mark.

Perhaps Holiday Inn will be back -- with a brighter approach down the road -- to seek Principal Registration after it believes it has sufficient evidence to establish acquired distinctiveness.

Any thoughts on how long that might take?

More On The Fordless Blue Oval

Posted on December 5, 2009 by Steve Baird

What do you think, is Overstock.com selling bling with the Fordless blue oval logo?

Enamel Turquoise with Blue Ovals Bangle Bracelet

As you may recall from my post back in September, Ford Motor Company is attempting to register the below shown non-verbal logo as a trademark for a variety of goods in Int'l Class 12:

Mark Image

And, as you may recall from Dan's I See Blue Ovals post back in August, there are far more than a handful of blue oval logos out there besides this one:

The pending Fordless blue oval intent-to-use trademark application recently was examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and on October 23, 2009, the PTO found no substantive bases for refusal, but instead it issued an initial refusal noting only a couple of purely procedural or technical deficiencies, concerning the wording in the lengthy description of goods and the need for Ford to submit a claim of ownership to some related registrations (here, here, and here).

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 Trademark Touch: Owning and Protecting Touchmarks

Posted on November 3, 2009 by Steve Baird

The October/November issue of Brand Packaging magazine just hit the streets and I'm deeply honored to say that my piece entitled "A Trademark Touch: Strategies for Owning and Protecting Touchmarks" is this issue's "cover story" (minus the skull and crossbones).

The digital version can be read here. I hope you find it eye-opening in a tactile kind of way.

By the way, I'd love some feedback on it.

What is your favorite touchmark anyway?

Essential Spacing: Night & Day Commercial Impressions

Posted on October 24, 2009 by Steve Baird

La Mer The Body Creme

Millimeters apart on the label, miles apart in meaning. Yes, a few extra millimeters of blank space can make all the difference in the world for some brands. Especially when the brand name consists of two words, and the typical visual treatment has all letters appearing in identical size and style (all caps), and when compressing the words yields an unintended, unfavorable meaning. Take the above luxury skin care brand owned by La Mer Technology, one of the Estee Lauder companies.

Honestly, I'm not sure how, but a few weeks ago, I came across Felicia Sullivan's blog post "Covet Fall's Top 10 Beauty Indulgences" on The Huffington Post, featuring the above product image. I took a double take at the brand name, laughed out loud (initially thinking it was a spoof product), and after realizing it wasn't, I knew I couldn't resist writing about it.

Part of my due diligence involved questioning my wife about it, she being far more experienced in these kinds of matters. I was "kindly" informed that "anybody who is anyone" knows La Mer is a coveted luxury skin care brand. Since being educated, I now introduce my wife as anyone, and myself as no one. Ironically, you might say I fit at least one slang definition of "lamer" -- "a person who is out of touch with modern fads or trends, esp. one who is unsophisticated." There are other meanings too, that I suspect don't implicate the target market for $130 an ounce skin care products, or value-priced 16.5 ounce containers at $1,390. Just so you know, I also have come to know that anyone who knows anything about the French language knows La Mer means "the sea".

My youthful (I prefer that term to juvenile) amusement in the brand name was triggered by initially seeing LAMER on the label, not LA MER (well, excuse me), and imagining it on a department store shelf in a SNL skit correctly positioned as a mid-grade skin care brand right between LAME on the left, and LAMEST on the right.

More seriously, attempting to put myself in the position of the La Mer brand guardians, I couldn't help but think how careful they must be in measuring the millimeters of open space between LA and MER on their various product labels and advertisements. I wouldn't be surprised if the trademark style guide for this brand is equipped with a pair of calipers to ensure proper and precise spacing.

Let's just say that LA MER is not a brand well-suited for the trend of many marketers to compress a multi-word brand name into a compound or telescoped brand and trademark. HomeGoods is one safe example, can you think of others, maybe some not so safe? Any internet domain names?

Yet, La Mer seems to understand the tendency for and risk of brand compression and actually pays for internet keywords without the essential spacing between La and Mer. Not only for sponsored listings on Google, but on Dictionary.com too, as shown in the above linked definition for "lamer".

It is curious to me, given the variety of unintended and unflattering meanings of "LAMER," that the style guide for this brand doesn't require use of lower case "a" and lower case "er" to clearly yield La Mer, but then again, I fully admit to not being part of the target market for this coveted luxury skin care brand. Presumably, those who are in the market for La Mer brand bathroom fixtures, namely lavatories (as opposed to eau de toilette), aren't either.

Update: Who's Your Patty? Lawsuit and Reverse Confusion

Posted on October 17, 2009 by Steve Baird

The Minneapolis Star Tribune finally reported on the Who's Your Patty? trademark infringement lawsuit filed in August by self-proclaimed "David" (Lion's Tap) against "Goliath" (McDonald's), here. Our previous coverage is here, here, and here.

The Star Tribune reports that McDonald's has not yet answered the complaint filed by Lion's Tap. That's true, but all that means is that Lion's Tap filed, but has not yet formally served the complaint on McDonald's. Had the complaint been formally served on McDonald's, as the rules require before an obligation to answer arises, then McDonald's would have twenty days in which to respond. So, the parties continue to negotiate for an amicable settlement.

No doubt, "David" would prefer not to have to formally serve the complaint because that is when the federal court's machinery starts to turn and more significant money begins to be spent in pursuing the case. Of course, Lion's Tap will need to formally serve the complaint on McDonald's within 120 days of filing the complaint or risk the suit being dismissed, so, just before year end. We previously have discussed the strategy of filing, but not immediately serving federal court complaints, here.

The Star Tribune story also reports: "The Lion's Tap says it has been using the phrase for at least four years and has had it trademarked in Minnesota. It also has a federal trademark application submitted." The use of past tense "had" appears to repeat the same incorrect fact that most of the media ran with when the story originally broke, namely, that Lion's Tap had registered Who's Your Patty? as a trademark slogan before McDonald's began use of the same slogan, implying McDonald's knowingly "stole" something of Lion's Tap.

As you may recall, we already pointed out how nearly all the media outlets got this critical fact wrong, as Lion's Tap did not register until ten days before it filed suit against McDonald's, and well after McDonald's posted billboards bearing the slogan. All the Hamburglar references don't stick to McDonald's if it knew nothing about Lion's Tap's discrete prior use of the Who's Your Patty? slogan, an entirely plausible scenario, as we have already discussed, here.

Most interesting, at least to me, are the scores of reader comments to the Star Tribune story, here.

For the time being, they reveal that, for just about every enthusiastic Lion's Tap fan who loves to support the small fry and is cheering on "David" there is a pretty harsh critic of Lion's Tap, some even taking pot shots at the quality of its food. Indeed, it appears a substantial number would endorse Jason Voiovich's caution: "Here's the problem, instead of coming off as the victim (which you could argue Lion's Tap is), they come off as another coffee-in-the-crotch, show-me-the-money, lawsuit-happy opportunist." So, you might say that PR can cut both ways.

The comments also understandably reveal more confusion between Lion's Tap and Lyon's Pub than between David's and Goliath's respective uses of Who's Your Patty?

Also, I learned from the comments about another reportedly great burger joint that appears to be worth the extra drive: Hopper's Bar in Waconia. I'll make sure to let you know how that goes. So, beware, PR efforts can unintentionally inform even loyal patrons of competitive alternatives too!

More on the legal claims, after the jump, in case you're interested.

The touchstone of any trademark infringement case is "likelihood of confusion," and a typical case contemplates "forward confusion." Under a "forward confusion" theory, Lion's Tap (as the first user a/k/a senior user) would need to establish that customers mistakenly think that McDonald's Angus Third Pounders come from Lion's Tap or are at least connected with Lion's Tap. Let's just say that there are some in the public commenting on the case who appear more than a bit skeptical of any consumer confusion claims. There are comments to the Star Tribune article voicing the same skepticism.

A much less typical trademark infringement case contemplates "reverse confusion." Under a "reverse confusion" theory, Lion's Tap would need to establish that customers mistakenly think that Lion's Tap burgers come from McDonald's, or are somehow connected with McDonald's, and perhaps that customers mistakenly think Lion's Tap has infringed on McDonald's "Who's Your Patty" slogan. Small fry trademark owners often like the "reverse confusion" theory because it has yielded very large multi-million dollar monetary awards.

Tiffany previously discussed reverse confusion cases, here.

So, is Lion's Tap case a "forward confusion" trademark case or one based on a "reverse confusion" theory? Seems to me it is more positioned like a less typical "reverse confusion" case, but at present, the language in the complaint probably is broad enough to encompass both theories, at least for the time being.

Assuming Lion's Tap follows the reverse confusion path, one of the critical elements of a "reverse confusion" case is a knowing junior user. As such, for Lion's Tap to succeed on a "reverse confusion" theory it will need to show that McDonald's had actual knowledge of Lion's Tap's prior use of the "Who's Your Patty?" slogan. It will be interesting to see what the facts end up showing on this critical point.

Simply a Miscellaneous Design?

Posted on October 8, 2009 by Steve Baird

Mark Image

In case you're wondering, this design is a federally-registered non-verbal trademark.

The owner identified it as a "Miscellaneous Design," without further detail or description (since it predated the more rigorous rules on supplying the Trademark Office with an accurate and detailed description of the mark).

The U.S. Trademark Office assigned to this design mark Design Code 24.15.25 ("other arrows") and in some cases 26.17.09 ("bands, curved; bars, curved; curved lines, bands or bars; lines, curved.").

So, now that you're armed with all this valuable information, certainly you can answer three simple questions: (1) Who owns it? (2) What is it? and (3) What goods or services are identified and distinguished by this non-verbal design mark?

(1) Does this help answer my first question?

Mark Image

(2) As to what it is, most individuals at the Trademark Office who have coded the design connecting the "a" to "z" see an arrow, but some see a curved line too.

I see a smile (perhaps my positive outlook on life), but I'm aware of at least one other optimist, here. Actually, Graphic Design Blog identifies the Amazon.com logo as one of 25 logos with "hidden messages," one being the apparent smile. In addition, if you were to pay close attention to a previously used animated version of the Amazon.com logo, I am informed you might be able to see another more unwholesome and unintended perspective of the design, apparently an animated version from the year 2000 where the arrow grows from left to right, as described here.

(3) Now, as to what goods or services are identified and distinguished by this "miscellaneous" design mark, it is only federally-registered in the U.S. within Int'l Class 39 for "packaging of articles for transport for others." Amazon.com sought registration of the "miscellaneous" design in Int'l Classes 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42, but each of those applications eventually was abandoned.

Having said that, the "miscellaneous" design appears as part of the Amazon.com composite logo shown above and is federally-registered in that composite form for a variety of services falling in the same Int'l Classes that were abandoned for the stand-alone non-verbal logo, namely, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42.

Lessons to be Learned?

The "miscellaneous" description won't cut it anymore, more detail is now required;
Sometimes designs can communicate multiple meanings and commercial impressions;
Ultimately, the meaning of a non-verbal design is based on the impression actually created in the minds of consumers, not what may have been intended by the trademark owner or assigned by the Trademark Office;
The assignment of U.S. Trademark Office Design Codes is rather subjective and quite imperfect; and
Searching to clear non-verbal logos can be quite difficult and is more art than science.

One Risqué of a Bawls-to-the-Wall Marketing Style?

Posted on October 1, 2009 by Steve Baird

Have you ever experienced or observed marketing styles that might be fairly described as high-octane, fast-paced, or perhaps, so hopped-up on Red Bull® or some other energy drink, there is simply no time for meaningful collaboration, much less careful, proactive, strategic thinking or planning? Perhaps a fun, exhilarating experience, but what are the consequences?

If you have, as you might know first hand (or at least imagine), this style can seriously compromise valuable intellectual property rights and protection. You know when the trademark attorney gets the call if this style controls, right? Immediately upon encountering a serious and unfair competitive threat. But in many instances, this will be long after a coherent strategy might have been created, well after packaging is designed and introduced, well after marketing materials are finalized and distributed, long after websites have been launched, and well after all the unknowing, but self-inflicted damage is done. In some cases the resulting damage is manageable and can be repaired, other times it is not, and legal claims that might have been strong and viable suddenly have turned dead-on-arrival.

By way of example, perhaps you will recall my prior post about the Furminator and the lost intellectual property opportunities there?

In all fairness, the above-described marketing style may or may not portray the Bawls® Guarana energy drink brand, I can't know for sure, but seeing some of the brand's marketing statements -- after being drawn in by the brand -- has raised enough questions and goose bumps for me to at least wonder out loud.

Let's face it, the packaging is visually striking and begs to be handled like no other. Judging from reactions I have seen others have to the bottle, there is something about it that makes people want to touch it, feel it, or hold it, even if they don't end up consuming the contents.

What an amazing opportunity to engage multiple human senses and cement the bond of loyalty between consumer and brand. Indeed, the bottle design almost seems inspired by the teaching of famed Martin Lindstrom in his pioneer work on "sensory branding," entitled BRAND sense, but it appears to predate Lindstrom's 2005 masterpiece by almost a decade.

Although Bawls® brand owner Hobarama, LLC, has obtained a federal trademark registration for a number of visual elements combined together to form a specific trade dress concerning the bottle configuration, owning a purely tactile or touch trademark in the arrangement of the "bumps" element itself appears impossible now (and may even raise questions about the validity of the "bumps" aspect of the trade dress), given admissions already made in marketing materials: "The 'bumps' on the bottle are there to provide a grip so that it does not slip out of your hand when it is wet. And we think it looks cool." Cool looks are fine to tout, but not "non-slip" features, if trademark protection is desired.

Moreover, the statement "Our famous glass bottles are bumped to give BAWLS drinkers a non-slip-grip" seems commercially unnecessary, if not a subtle diversion for another possible explanation of the "bumps" given the risque' and double-entendre-laden brand name, but either way, the "non-slip" reference condemns any hope of a pure touch trademark based on the admitted functionality.

Why commercially unnecessary? Really, can you name another energy beverage brand that needs non-slip-grips in order to compete with Red Bull®?

I can't.

True Lies, Trademark Fraud, and the Medinol Detour

Posted on September 28, 2009 by Steve Baird

Trademark types: As promised, here are some of my more detailed thoughts and perspectives (at least for the time being) on the most significant trademark case of the year: In re Bose.

Thanks to Thomson Reuters for asking me to share them with their readers. I look forward to some great dialogue on the likely implications resulting from this long-anticipated trademark fraud decision.

Marketing types: An adversary's ability to cancel your company's trademark registration for fraud just got much more difficult with this important Bose decision. Basically, fraud means fraud again.

Instead of your adversary only needing to prove that you should have known that a material statement made to the Trademark Office actually was false at the time you made it (as was the law applied by the U.S. Trademark Office for the last six years), now, simple negligence is no longer enough to establish trademark fraud, instead, an actual intent-to-deceive the Trademark Office must be proven.

Having said that, despite this revived more difficult-to-prove fraud standard, it is as important as ever to treat the statements or representations you make to the Trademark Office as seriously as ever, and with the utmost solemnity, making sure you truly understand what you are signing so you can actually affirm the truth of those statements and representations.

It probably goes without saying that the apparent simplicity of the electronic trademark forms can be quite deceiving. So, there are no stupid questions when it comes to your understanding before signing electronic form documents that are submitted to the Trademark Office.

UPDATE: ExecSense Webinar on the Bose Decision, now available for purchase. Just so you know, all royalties due to me are being donated to The Ronald McDonald House Charity.

Blue Oval, But Look Mom, No Words!

Posted on September 22, 2009 by Steve Baird

What does this image signify to you?

Mark Image

For full credit, please answer the question before peeking back at Dan's popular post called "I See Blue Ovals."

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

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?

Mark Image 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.

What Does "Trademarked" Mean to You?

Posted on September 14, 2009 by Steve Baird

More than a few trademark types cringe when their clients or others say things like "let's trademark it," "they didn't trademark their logo," or "we don't want to trademark this name," and, when they ask questions like "is it trademarked?" or "is that trademarked software?" or "did we ever trademark our logo?" or "should we be trademarking this packaging?"

Indeed, some have written: “'Trademark' is not a verb. There is no such thing as 'trademarking' a word or phrase." Similar views are expressed here, here, and here.

Perhaps any cringing may result from the fact that the Lanham Act -- the federal trademark statute -- defines the word "trademark" as a noun, not a verb or adjective:

The term "trademark" includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof --

(1) used by a person, or

(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,

to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.

Section 45 of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1127.

Turns out though, the words "trademark," "trademarked," and "trademarking," are recognized words with established verb meanings that have formed part of the English language: "(1) To label (a product) with proprietary identification; and (2) to register (something) as a trademark." Moreover, the word "trademarked" has an established adjective meaning too: "labeled with proprietary (and legally registered) identification guaranteeing exclusive use; 'trademarked goods'".

From my perspective, there is no need for cringing or even correction, just further inquiry into how the words "trademark," "trademarked," and "trademarking" are being used.

Given the various definitions for these words, the speaker might mean labeling a product or advertising material, utilizing or marking such materials with the appropriate trademark notice or symbol, registering a trademark or service mark, or perhaps, all of the above. Since the described actions (labeling and registering) are quite distinct, it becomes important to seek clarity on the speaker's intended meaning.

For example, when referring to labeling with proprietary notices, the TM symbol does not require any registration for its proper use, and its use does not even imply registration has been sought or achieved. It simply communicates that the owner of the trademark in question views the claimed mark as proprietary. Likewise, when the SM symbol is used, no registration is required, and none is implied by its use, it simply means the claimed service mark is intended by the owner to be proprietary.

On the other hand, federal registration with the United States Trademark Office is a requirement before one can use the above-depicted "R within the Circle" symbol in the U.S., and it means that the mark in question (either a trademark for goods, or a service mark for services) actually has been federally-registered -- having a pending registration application is not enough, the actual Certificate of Registration must have issued for the use to be proper and lawful.

Keep in mind, that the word "trademark" can have meaning either a noun or verb, should not be confused with our previous discussion of whether verbing trademarks and brands is a good idea: "Just so you know, in general, the law views brand names and trademarks as adjectives, not nouns or verbs, so kudos to Nancy Friedman of Fritinancy to recognize this important point." [For my previous Just Verb It? Series, see: Part I, Part II, and Part III].

Twitter, Twitter Everywhere -- But Will They Own the Tweet?

Posted on September 5, 2009 by Guest Blogger

For the last month or so I've been following the antics of Twitter as they attempt to assert rights to the word "tweet". Based on their completely inconsistent—one might even say schizophrenic approach, I feel justified in using the word "antics".

Until very recently, Twitter didn't seem to care much about what third-party apps were named. In fact, in a blog post from July 2009, founder Biz Stone said, "Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. After all, Twitter is the name of our service and our company so the potential for confusion is much higher. When folks ask us about naming their application with "Twitter" we generally respond by suggesting more original branding for their project. This avoids potential confusion down the line."

Note the phrasing: “suggesting more original branding”. What happens if the developers don’t take the suggestion? By allowing so many third party apps to use the name already, they’ve tacitly given permission for others to infringe on their trademark. If they then try to defend their trademark against the new filers, what can they say?

A look at the USPTO database reveals that although Twitterrific applied for a trademark in March 2009, they voluntarily dropped it in April, right around the time that Twitter started sending out cease and desist letters. Other applicants - Twitter Twail, TwitterTag, TwitterTool, and Twitter Package - still have active applications which have not yet been refused by the USPTO examiners.

But wait, what? Twitter's sending out C&Ds?

Dean Collins, developer of MyTwitterButler (a Windows Twitter app), received a C&D in August, which asked him to stop using the word "twitter" in his app name, along with a claim of violation of terms of services for the API. The letter says in part:

"As you are likely aware, Twitter's extensive and widespread use of its TWITTER trademark provides Twitter with strong and defensible rights in the mark, and has caused the mark to become well-known, if not famous, in today's online marketplace. Twitter owns trademark applications and registrations for its mark in the United States and numerous other countries for use in connection with its online services, which will provide Twitter with exclusive rights in the mark."

And here's where it gets more interesting. Collins posted the following comment to CNET on August 20th (SIC):

Speaking from personal experience www.MyTwitterButler.com was sent a C&D not only to change the name but cease selling the software that uses the Twitter API forever (which btw conforms to all of the daily account limits set by Twitter when using the API so that confuses us even more), however that's for another time.

My conciliatory gesture to Twitters legal representative was that I would be happy to rename my application www.MyTweetButler.com on the basis on Biz Stone’s blog post...only to be told that no Twitter wouldn't allow me to rename my application to Tweet as they also held the trademark to this as well.

So not only did they not want him to use "twitter", but they forbade him from using "tweet" as well! How does that work, exactly? Sam Johnston has written an excellent overview of the situation, so I'll summarize his points:

- In the same blog post in which he made the "suggesting more original blah blah blah", Stone revealed that Twitter was also trying to trademark the word "tweet" "because it is clearly attached to Twitter from a brand perspective".

- "Tweet" was essentially an organic term, developed by users, to describe a post on Twitter. Twitter itself, in its online documentation, says

Twitter always asks the question, "What are you doing?" Each answer to that question is considered a Twitter status update, or what people often call a "tweet."

strongly implying that it's not an officially sanctioned name.

- Twitter's application for the mark "Tweet" was filed in April of 2009 (remember, that's when those C&Ds started going out) but was initially refused in July. This was due to prior applications for marks containing the word "tweet": CoTweet, Tweetmarks, and TweetPhoto.

Speaking of trademark registrations, despite Twitter's attempts to assert some rights over "tweet" the applications keep coming in. Both Tweetalator and Tweet Beacon were submitted in July.

By the way, I checked with Collins at MyTwitterButler and as of August 25th, he told me "Apart from their lawyers stating I wasn't going to be allowed to just change the name to mytweetbutler.com there has been no progress. I’ve asked for them to specifically tell me what exactly my application is doing wrong against their API but am still waiting for more confirmation."

Let's get back to Stone's blog post. He says, regarding "tweet": [... W]e encourage the use of the word Tweet. However, if we come across a confusing or damaging project, the recourse to act responsibly to protect both users and our brand is important."

Twitter encourages the use of the word "tweet", which they demonstrated by sending out cease & desist letters and/or revoking Twitter accounts, even though Twitter's rights to the name is on shaky ground and they don't use "tweet" as an official word at Twitter, plus they've only just applied for a trademark but been initially refused, and they don't appear to be following up the threatening letters with any kind of action.

Seriously, it seems that Twitter can't make up its mind whether it should be nice to third party developers, or be big meanies. The key to good trademark protection - even if you don't have an actual registered trademark - is consistency. This means using the mark in a proprietary way all the time, not letting other folks get away with using it when you're not paying attention, and asserting your rights where you actually have some. Of course, Twitter needs to protect its intellectual property, but they should have had a strategy for how to do that early on, not as an afterthought. They own "Twitter", but should they prevent other people from using it? Are they really going to make Twitterrific, the most popular iPhone app for Twitter, change its name? Really?

Owning "Tweet", however, seems like a losing battle, and from the press I've seen, it's putting Twitter in a very bad light, especially from the developers' point of view.

—Laurel Sutton, Principal Catchword Brand Name Development

Tags: Biz Stone, C&D Letters, Guest Bloggers, Social Commentary, Social Networking, Social Networking Sites, Trademark Attorney, Trademark Enforcement, Trademark Office, Trademark Policing, Trademark Registration, Trademark Types, Tweet, Tweeting, Twitter

CAFC Redirects TTAB in Trademark Fraud Ruling Today: In re Bose Decided

Posted on August 31, 2009 by Steve Baird

Today is a really, really big day for trademark types.

As many of us have been saying for a couple of years now, trademark fraud (i.e., fraud on the U.S. Trademark Office) continues to be one of the hottest issues facing trademark owners and the attorneys who represent them. Perhaps after today, not so much, but who really knows, we'll see.

For those not already plugged into the issue of trademark fraud, most mark the 2003 decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, as the starting point for a much lower, and easier to prove, standard of fraud.

After Medinol, if a trademark owner knew or "should have known" it made a material false statement to the Trademark Office, the entire resulting trademark registration was subject to cancellation at any time. Since then, and following the reasoning in Medinol, the TTAB issued numerous decisions granting opposition or cancellation of trademark applications and registrations on fraud grounds, causing trademark owners and their attorneys great concern with what many have called a strict liability standard, not one based upon an actual "intent to deceive" the U.S. Trademark Office. Most of these cases have fallen into the "overinclusive" goods and services category of fraud cases -- basically, cases having sworn statements that the applied-for mark is currently in use in connection with all of the listed goods and services, when in fact, something less than all the goods or services are actually in use with the mark.

For those interested on the development of the trademark fraud issue, here is a pdf of my slides for a talk I gave in January 2008, at LAIPLA's Washington in the West continuing education conference.

As some of you may recall, during several of my talks over the last two years, I have figuratively flashed a yellow light and cautioned that the CAFC -- the TTAB's primary reviewing court -- has not been heard on the subject of trademark fraud for quite some time, and it has not been clear to me that the CAFC actually would endorse the TTAB's easier to prove fraud standard in the Medinol line of cases. Today the CAFC weighed in on the subject.

Earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided In re Bose, a long-anticipated decision on what it takes to establish fraud before the U.S. Trademark Office. In doing so, the CAFC flashed a red light, indicating the TTAB had read "too broadly" prior CAFC precedent that had mentioned the words "should have known," and it specifically reaffirmed "that a trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO," and it further redirected the TTAB: "Unless the challenger can point to evidence to support an inference of deceptive intent, it has failed to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard required to establish a fraud claim."

So, after today, trademark fraud still exists, and it can be proven, provided it is "proven to the hilt," with "clear and convincing evidence," leaving "no room for speculation, inference or surmise," and so long as "any doubt must be resolved against the charging party." Basically, "deception must be willful to constitute fraud." [Here is a link to a pdf of the CAFC's Bose decision].

Hat tip to John Welch of the TTABlog for alerting his followers of the CAFC's decision published first thing in the morning today.

My more detailed perspectives about the CAFC's Bose decision will follow later.

Also, stay tuned, because we continue to await the CAFC's fraud decision that it is currently reviewing in Grand Canyon West Ranch, LLC v. Hualapai Tribe.

Percolating over Trademark Enforcement

Posted on August 26, 2009 by Karen Brennan

Recently, I stopped in a neighborhood coffee shop for an iced coffee. It was a fabulous little coffee shop in a neighborhood I don’t frequent and whose name I won’t mention. Anyway, while perusing the menu, I noticed they offered a blended coffee drink under the name Frappuccino. Noting the teenager behind the counter, I did not feel it would be beneficial to provide a trademark tutorial or a warning as to how Starbucks would react to this use of its arguably famous trademark for identical goods.

Sipping my delicious frozen beverage, I could not help thinking it would be a good blog topic to discuss the importance of trademark policing and enforcement. Obviously, this is not always an easy task and these types of uses are especially difficult to detect. In fact, Starbucks has been very active in protecting its trademark rights, even against small, mom-and-pop coffee shops which it discovers are using a similar name or logo mark such as Conga Coffee & Tea (similarly shaped green logo mark). However, identifying an infringing name of a shop is one thing, but identifying an infringing menu item is a far more difficult task.

Companies spend a lot of time and money developing brand names for products and services and many companies have hundreds of branded products in their portfolios. An important part of branding is protecting those brands and companies need to determine how to best monitor their marks. Employing a watch service is always a good idea for major brands and/or a company name. However, the cost of a watch service is by the mark and can quickly add up if a company has numerous brands to protect. Thus, a few suggestions as to steps a company can take to protect its marks include:

Apply for federal trademark registration whenever possible;
Proper and consistent use of the ® ™ symbols in connection with each and every brand;
Undertake periodic Internet searches for potentially infringing uses;
Create champions for your brand - highly loyal customers, distributors, retailers, and other partners, who will bring potential infringements to your attention;
Internal education for employees to keep their eyes open and listen with an open ear when others bring potential infringements to light; and
If you become aware of a potential infringement, take action sooner rather than later by sending a formal letter. You may want to consider hiring a trademark attorney to send the letter; investing in a well written cease and desist letter will often pay off by putting an end to the infringement.

Tags: Almost Advice, Brand Champions, Champions for Brand, Food, Frappuccino, Infringement, Starbucks, Trademark, Trademark Attorney, Trademark Enforcement, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Notice, Trademark Policing, Trademark Portfolio, Trademark Registration, Trademarks, coffee

Pros and Cons of Stand-Alone Non-Verbal Logos and Other Trademark Styles: A Legal Perspective

Posted on August 20, 2009 by Steve Baird

As promised earlier this week, in my post entitled "Without Words, But Not Speechless: More On Non-Verbal Logos That Can Stand Alone," here is my effort to identify, from a legal perspective, some of the pros and cons of non-verbal logos and other trademark styles.

But, before addressing the legal implications, it is worth noting that a number of our insightful readers and commenters already have helped articulate a variety of pros and cons from a business and marketing perspective, here. By my count, there appears to be consensus on at least two important points: (1) Having an iconic stand-alone non-verbal logo or wordless trademark symbol is highly desirable, especially for truly international brands; but (2) be prepared to spend a lot of time, effort, and significant resources to achieve one.

In addition, at least one designer has written that having a logo without words "can be a big branding pain," for a variety of reasons. She identifies three basic logo styles: (1) Text logos; (2) symbol logos; and (3) combination logos. Examples of text logos would be the Coca-Cola script, the Yahoo! stylized word, and the Google stylized word, all three illustrated in my earlier post. The highly stylized Ebay logo is another good example of a text logo. On the other hand, the Shell logo, McDonald's Golden Arches, and the Nike Swoosh, are all good examples of symbol logos. In addition, here is a message board collecting a number of other possible candidates for symbol logos that are capable of standing lone -- without words -- yet, they still have a lot to say to consumers. Many of them, in fact, were mentioned by commenters to my prior post.

Anyway, the designer referenced above contends that for a variety of reasons, combination logos often make the most sense. According to her, a combination logo "combines both a symbol and the company name. The symbol and text can be integrated together, side by side, or with one located above the other."

Generally, from a trademark owner and legal perspective, I prefer the combination logo too, but not the "integrated" type, instead the "side by side" type or the "one above the other" type. The Mercedes-Benz combination logo shown below nicely illustrates the "one above the other" type of combination logo:

Why do I generally prefer this type of trademark logo format and style?

Well, in general, this format and style is more flexible, easier to clear for adoption and use, easier to register and protect each element separately, and easier to enforce rights in both verbal and non-verbal elements.

With respect to enhanced flexibility, a trademark owner can elect to always use the verbal and non-verbal elements together, perhaps as a way of reducing the risk of infringing on another's prior rights in a mark perhaps similar to either the verbal or non-verbal element, or as Jack Cuffari commented, the combination logo is the "best-case scenario" because it is possible to "wean the symbol away from the name once research has proven that the target audience gets the connection, so that the symbol can be used alone, or in conjunction with the brand name."

Indeed, few symbol logos spring into existence without a history of having been used side by side with the underlying brand name, so, the symbol adopted by the "Artist Formerly Known as Prince" is probably the best exception to this general rule:

prince_symbol2

With respect to ease of clearance, it is generally less of a challenge to clear physically separable combination logos over text logos or integrated combination logos, since the Mercedes-Benz verbal portion involves a straightforward word search, and the corresponding three-point star within a circle symbol involves a straightforward design search. In fact, it is often more difficult to obtain a comprehensive and reliable trademark search report for a proposed text logo or an integrated combination logo as compared to a symbol logo or a physically separable combination logo. Because of design coding challenges, it is easier for a trademark searcher to locate prior marks of potential concern when one's proposed logo comprises a stylized star or shell design than a text logo that may be unknowingly or unintentionally similar, not to the word, but to the color combination and lettering style employed by, say, Coca-Cola, Yahoo!, Google, or Ebay:

For more information on the importance of trademark clearance, see my previous post entitled "Look Before You Leap! The Dangers of Not Clearing Brands Before First Use."

With respect to ease of registration, if the brand name is physically integrated and part of or even touching the non-verbal design elements, in many cases, the non-verbal design elements cannot be separately registered as a trademark. To register the non-verbal design elements of an integrated combination logo, it must be shown that those non-verbal elements actually perform a trademark function to indicate source separate and apart from the verbal element. This can be difficult to establish if the verbal element is always present within the design. On the other hand, the Trademark Office views a non-integrated combination logo as comprising at least three different marks, each of which may be registered alone: (1) The word or words; (2) the non-verbal symbol; and (3) the combination of verbal and non-verbal elements. By being able to register each element separately at the outset, even during a time when they are always used together, it facilitates the trademark owner's ability to eventually "wean the symbol away from the name" with added confidence.

For more information on the importance and benefits of federal registration, see my previous post entitled "The Power of Federal Trademark Registration Remains Strong in Tough Economic Times."

With respect to ease of enforcement, assuming each element of a physically separable combination logo has been registered, enforcement is enhanced too, for the reasons already stated above. Having each element registered separately, eventhough they may only be used together, permits the Trademark Office to refuse registration of later marks that are confusingly similar to either the verbal or non-verbal element. In the event the Trademark Office doesn't see a conflict for some unexplained reason, the non-integrated combination logo format also enhances the trademark owner's ability to challenge registration of another's mark that may not be confusingly similar to the combined elements, but to one of them.

Battle of the Nerds? Best Buy's Geek Squad® on Trademark Patrol

Posted on July 23, 2009 by Steve Baird

Mark Image

Best Buy, owner of the Geek Squad brand since 2002, has filed a federal trademark infringement complaint in Minnesota against a pair of individual defendants apparently located in Missouri and California, for allegedly registering and using <thegeekpatrol.biz> domain and the names "Geek Patrol," "Geek Squad," and "Geek Squad Patrol". Here is a copy of the Complaint, including Exhibit A (Trademark registrations), Exhibit B (DomainTools.com print out), Exhibit C (Tollfreeda.com print out), and Exhibit D (Superpages.com print out).

For those of you interested in great entrepreneurial stories, Robert Stephens founded Geek Squad while a student at the University of Minnesota, riding his bicycle around Minneapolis to make computer house calls. The stylish collection of branded Beetles permitted Stephens to cover much more ground when making house calls or office calls. I actually had the pleasure of meeting Robert Stephens and toured his humble first office located above Moose & Sadie's cafe and coffeehouse blocks from downtown Minneapolis. He gave me and my wife what are now vintage Geek Squad t-shirts, obviously we should have had them autographed at the time!

My early and initial observations of the Geek Squad trademark Complaint are below the jump.

First, one question worth asking is whether it is reasonable for these individual defendants to anticipate being sued in Minnesota for alleged computer repair activities outside of Minnesota. It is not clear to me from the Complaint whether either defendant actually operated or conducted business in Minnesota. Will there be an effort to dismiss the case by challenging personal jurisdiction? Basically, this is a popular legal argument and defense that the courts in Minnesota don't have the authority to hear a case involving the defendants because they don't have the necessary "minimum contacts" with Minnesota for the case to go forward there.

Second, it is worth noting that Best Buy selectively asserted two Geek Squad service mark registrations (U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,943,643 and 2,744,658) -- those that are over five years old and also have achieved incontestable status. Given that the term "geek" has a recognized slang meaning with respect to the field of computers ("a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders."), it is curious that the Trademark Office has not employed this definition in requiring a disclaimer of the descriptive term "geek" in connection with computer repair services. By selectively pleading only incontestable registrations, Best Buy is able to foreclose a legal defense on the ground that the registered mark is not distinctive and merely descriptive, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in PARK'N FLY, INC. v. DOLLAR PARK AND FLY, INC., 469 U.S. 189 (1985).

Third, given that the recognized meaning of "geek" has direct application to the services provided under the Geek Squad mark, one has to assume that the scope of rights or the strength of the Geek Squad mark will be put at issue (see my previous post concerning trademark strength here), if this case actually is defended. As you might imagine, given the dictionary meaning, there are more than a few other "geeks" out there already providing or planning to provide the same or similar services and goods, all or nearly all post-dating the 1994 first use date for Best Buy's Geek Squad mark. For example: here (Geek I.T. Just Geek It), here (Geek), here (Geek by Phone), here (Cheap Geek), here (Geek Choice), here (GeekSugar), here (GeekBucks), here (Geek in Pink), here (A+ Computer Geek), here (Geek 911), here (Free Geek), here (Geek.com), here (TechnoGeek), here (GeekTeks), here (GeekSurance), here (Seek a Geek), here (GeekDesk), here (GeekOfficecalls), here (Geek City), here (Beep-a-Geek), here (Ask the Geek), here (VipGeek), here (Geek on the Run), here (When a Tech Isn't Enough, Call a Geek!), here (Not Just Any Geek), here (Geeks! GetYourGeek.com), here (Dial a Geek), here (GeekFleet), here (Speak With a Geek), here (Geek Rescue), here (How-To Geek), here (Geek for Hire), here (Geek Ghost), here (Geek Call!), here (Geek in a Box), here (Don't Hire a Geek, Hire a Pro!), here (1-800-905-GEEK), here (GeekWerkz), here (Call a Tech Not a Geek), here (Click-A-Geek), here (ElectroGeek), here (1 800 GEEK HELP), here (Geek National), here (Where No Geek Has Gone Before), here (The Geek Goddess), here (Don't Call a Geek When You Can Call an Expert), here (Geekabytes), here (GeekOnline), here (Geek-Client Privilege), here (Why Call A Geek When You Can Call A Friend), here (GeekForce.Biz), here (Geek Boutique), here (Rent-A-Geek), here (Phone A Geek), here (The Geek Patrol), here (Geek Housecalls), here (Beep-A-Geek), and here (1 800 Be A Geek).

Seems safe to say, at this point in time, that the field of "geek" marks concerning computer products and services is more than a bit crowded, which would typically lead to a conclusion of diminished or narrower trademark strength (see my previous post on Twitter and Trademark Enforcement and Protection):

"A trademark owner's failure to take action against the unauthorized use of its trademark by third persons can result in an abandonment of the mark, but only if the unauthorized use is so widespread that the designation loses its significance as an indication of source or sponsorship. More typically, the fact of third-party use is relevant only to the 'strength' of the mark, and hence to its appropriate scope of protection." Restatement of the Law (Third) Unfair Competition 313 (1995).

It's not as though Best Buy has failed to take any steps to enforce the Geek Squad trademark, for example, it sued Geek Housecalls in 2004, and it opposed registration of Geek Housecalls, Speak With A Geek, and Geek Rescue, but those marks ended up becoming registered despite the oppositions. It also filed extensions of time to oppose 1-800 905 GEEK, Geek Choice, and Beep-A-Geek Computer Services, but it never actually filed oppositions, and those marks are also now federally registered by other parties. With respect to more successful efforts, Best Buy opposed registration of the mark The Geek Patrol, Rent a Geek, and the slogan "Comtech We Beat The Geeks," and each of those applications has been abandoned. Moreover, in 2007 Best Buy obtained a Consent Judgment against Geek Brigade, located in Missouri. However, all this just makes one wonder how Best Buy determines exactly which "geeks" to patrol?

Judging from Paragraph 3 of the Prayer for Relief in the present Complaint against Geek Patrol, Best Buy is asking the Court to enjoin any uses of "Geek" by the defendants: "[U]sing . . . materials . . . bearing the words 'Geek,' 'Geek Squad,' 'Geek Patrol,' 'Geek Squad Patrol,' and any other mark, word, or name confusingly similar to . . . GEEK SQUAD . . . ." Given the defined meaning of the term "geek" and the rather prolific landscape of third parties, the requested prohibition on "Geek" appears to overreach. Perhaps this lawsuit will provide Best Buy with an opportunity to clarify its trademark protection strategy and articulate a more appropriate scope of protection for the Geek Squad mark.

Last, a boilerplate phrase in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint against Geek Patrol caught my attention, since it is not needed in order to prevail, and it only appears to provide the defendants with an opportunity to probe some rather unfavorable press Best Buy has received for lawsuits involving alleged improper conduct of certain Geek Squad Agents: "Best Buy . . . through continuous and uninterrupted use of the GEEK SQUAD Marks, has earned a reputation for knowledgeable, courteous, and outstanding customer service, as well as quality products. This reputation, goodwill and name recognition have been derived in part, from its commitment to service, satisfaction, and quality." (emphasis added)

Only time will tell whether this case will play out to be a real "Battle of the Nerds" or leave all of us trademark dorks to watch VHS reruns of "Revenge of the Nerds" instead.

The FURminator® and Ads Touting Utility: Marking the Termination of Product Configuration Trademark Protection?

Posted on July 16, 2009 by Steve Baird

If FURminator Inc. were looking for a pitchman to promote and increase sales of the "famous" FURminator® pet grooming tool, and recognizing the recent, sudden and unforfunate passing of famous bearded TV pitchman Billy Mays (who could sell household products better than just about anyone, and still appears to be doing so after his passing), I'm thinking that the fictional cyborg assassin character played by "Ahnold" in "The Terminator" film would be the next best pitchman for the futuristic, stylish, and eye-catching pet grooming product shown above.

While either Billy Mays or Ahnold probably could have increased, or still could increase, sales of the product, it is more likely that neither could have saved the company from losing its bid to register trademark protection for the claimed trade dress, covering the three dimensional shape and appearance of the product. Since the applications were refused registration by the U.S. Trademark Office on functionality grounds here and here, and they terminated (were abandoned) without response, I suspect that early collaborations between legal and marketing types (and probably engineering types too) is all that might have helped avoid the terminal fate of these wishful non-traditional trademark applications.

Product configurations, such as the product shape shown above, may be owned, registered and protected as unconventional or non-traditional trademarks, but only if the claimed design is non-functional and it is proven to have secondary meaning a/k/a acquired distinctiveness. Our friend John Welch of the TTABlog published a nice piece on this topic a few years back.

One cannot recover from a trademark functionality refusal when one's own marketing materials and advertising touts the utility or the functional advantages of the very applied-for design features. Although it doesn't appear that the assigned Examining Attorney at the Trademark Office used advertising of the Applicant, FURminator Inc., to support the functionality refusal, as they are quite happy to do when they can, it appears there was more than ample "touting" material available.

An Applicant's website is where most Examining Attorneys start, and in this case, one of the touted "features and benefits" of the FURminator® deShedding Tool found on its website is the "Ergonomic handle" also known as the "Ergonomic rubber comfort grip." In fact, on the Applicant's About Us page it says even more: "Little by little they experimented with different, more-ergonomic handle designs and more-effective edges. After many modifications they arrived at their most successful design and had it patented." Ouch, deshedding with statements like this hurts your ability to secure trademark protection in non-traditional trademarks, including product configurations and trade dress. Moreover, Online retailers and others in the media tend to quickly take the lead of the manufacturer and repeat the same kind of unhelpful statements, making it virtually impossible to clean up all the dander mess after the fact.

Obviously, early strategic collaboration between legal and marketing types can lead to success in avoiding the creation of marketing materials and advertising that make it impossible to ever protect the configuration of a product using the trademark laws. It is also important not to forget to include engineering or other technical types in early conversations about the possibility of securing legal protection -- even before the final product design is completed.

How do you know when engineers or other technical types in an organization are driving the company sales bus without trademark and marketing licenses? One sign might be when advertising and marketing materials tout utilitarian advantages of product features that the company would like to own forever as a trademark (long after any design and utility patents expire). Another sign can be when trademark applications and registrations employ complicated, detailed, patent-like, narrow descriptions such as "pet brush, namely, a grooming device for fur bearing animals in the nature of a brushlike instrument for removal of the animals' loose or shedding hair," instead of straightforward, broad, and pre-approved trademark-like descriptions such as "brushes for pets". Kind of reminds me of the trouble Rollerblade got into by using "boots equipped with longitudinally aligned rollers used for skating and skiing" instead of "in-line skates" during its first decade of business, as you may recall from my prior blog post, here.

Finally, it appears that FURminator Inc. has not yet given up on a related, but different pair of non-traditional trademark applications for the so-called "trade dress" of the FURminator® grooming tool, of course, minus the product shape or configuration, leaving only a combination of colors as they are applied to the product: "[T]he color black of the hand-grip portion of the handle of the tool in combination with the color blue [or yellow] making up the portion of the handle that attaches the hand grip portion to the pet-engageable portion of the tool." Earlier this year both applications were initially refused registration on lack of distinctiveness grounds, here and here, and responses are due in about a week, so we'll know soon whether these applications will continue to be petted and combed or if they'll simply be shed from the company's trademark portfolio.

Anyone else think they may have a bit of hair on them?

Holiday Inn Lights It Up With a Pair of Non-Traditional Trademarks

Posted on June 25, 2009 by Steve Baird

Notice anything special about this pair of photographs featuring two different Holiday Inn front entrances? OK, putting aside that the one on the right -- with green lighting -- seems to have attracted, at least, a few cars, whereas the "blue light special" on the left appears to stage a full house with virtually every room light on, but ironically it reveals an empty parking lot.

Well, these aren't ordinary photographs, they are trademark specimens of use; Six Continents Hotels, owner of the Holiday Inn brand, claims that they depict a pair of non-traditional trademarks, having filed them with the U.S. Trademark Office in April 2009, and asserting that use of the "lighting" marks commenced back in January 2008. So, we aren't talking about the new H logo previously blogged about here or the old Holiday Inn word mark -- those are standard and traditional single-letter logo and word trademarks. In case you're wondering, no sign of any red or yellow lights for Holiday Inn, at least, on the Trademark Office database.

This is how Holiday Inn describes the claimed green lighting trademark:

"The mark consists of green lighting formed by four light fixtures placed in a symmetrical fashion near the entryway of the building. The lower set of two green lights are evenly placed on columns to the right and left of the entry way and direct the green lighting downward, while the upper set of two green lights are evenly placed on the building wall above the entry way and direct the green lighting upwards."

It took the Trademark Office only three weeks to issue registration refusals (green lighting refusal in pdf here).

Surprisingly, the Trademark Office did not issue an initial functional refusal as it typically does when trade dress and single color marks are claimed, which would put the burden on the applicant to establish non-functionality, but it nevertheless refused registration for the following reasons:

Non-distinctive three-dimensional configuration
Mere decoration or ornamentation
Acquired distinctiveness not shown
Customary in hotel industry to have lighting near entrances for illumination/security

Having said all that, the concept of protecting a lighting scheme as a trademark, even a colored one, even in the hospitality industry, is certainly do-able with early and close collaboration between trademark and marketing types.

They are not common, however, as evidenced by the Trademark Office's inability to locate a prior registration to bar approval of the Holiday Inn applications on likelihood of confusion grounds. Indeed, the only federally-registered non-traditional lighting mark in the hospitality industry that I'm aware of, despite some admittedly modest searching, is one I obtained for Mystic Lake Casino & Hotel more than ten years ago, covering "a formation of light beams resembling the conical framework of a tipi emanating from a circular source of light."

My humble prediction is that a strong showing of look-for advertising is what it will take for Holiday Inn to avoid having their green and blue lights simply burn out at the Trademark Office.

Holiday Inn has until November to respond to the initial registration refusals, so stay tuned here on DuetsBlog for further developments.

The Power of Federal Trademark Registration Remains Strong in Tough Economic Times

Posted on May 14, 2009 by Steve Baird

The question of whether federal trademark registration should be pursued is a frequent question of those in the marketing world, especially during difficult economic times. I wrote a short piece for Create Magazine a couple of years ago, and you can read it, here. As you will see, there are many benefits to registration and some significant risks in foregoing this valuable protection, making the relatively small investment well worth it.

Just so you know, nothing (including current economic conditions) has changed or rendered my thoughts on the subject moot, in fact, during these tough and challenging economic times, businesses and non-profits would do well to not cut this important cost or corner.

Now, some realize the importance of the protection, but in an effort to save or defer cost, they have considered holding off on filing a federal trademark application -- to see how the product does -- before making a final decision on the filing. If you or someone you know falls into this category, while I sympathize with your and their efforts to manage a tight budget, understand another risk that goes a step further than the risks already covered in the above-linked Create Magazine article.

To do so, after you have conducted the appropriate due diligence to clear use of the new name and mark, ask yourself how long it will take to get your product with the new name and brand in the stream of commerce and in the marketplace. Without the important benefit of constructive use relating back to the filing date of the federal trademark application, it is important to realize that your investment in preparing for the product launch may be lost altogether if another person or company files an intent-to-use trademark application, for a confusingly similar mark, even one day before you get to market with your newly named product. If this happens you and they may very well "see how the product does" with another name.

Tags: Almost Advice, Articles, Benefits of Federal Registration, Benefits of Federal Trademark Registration, Branding, Federal Registration, Federal Trademark Registration, Marketing, Tough Economic Times, Trademark Registration, Trademarks

Duets Blog

Suite 3500 | 225 South Sixth Street |

Minneapolis, MN 55402-4629

Telephone:

(612) 604-6400

| Fax:

(612) 604-6800

Intellectual property lawyer & attorneys at Duets Blog, offering services related to copyrights, trademarks, brand management, patents, licensing and marketing issues.

Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

Collaborations in creativity & the law

More Godin on Trademark? The Sequel

Seth Godin on Trademark?

What a Crock, Pot That Is . . .

Question Mark Brands?

What a Croc!

Lightning Strikes How Many Times?

Holiday Inn Puts Dimmer on Non-Traditional Lighting Trademarks

More On The Fordless Blue Oval

A Trademark Touch: Owning and Protecting Touchmarks

Essential Spacing: Night & Day Commercial Impressions

Update: Who's Your Patty? Lawsuit and Reverse Confusion

Simply a Miscellaneous Design?

One Risqué of a Bawls-to-the-Wall Marketing Style?

True Lies, Trademark Fraud, and the Medinol Detour

Blue Oval, But Look Mom, No Words!

What Does "Trademarked" Mean to You?

Twitter, Twitter Everywhere -- But Will They Own the Tweet?

CAFC Redirects TTAB in Trademark Fraud Ruling Today: In re Bose Decided

Percolating over Trademark Enforcement

Pros and Cons of Stand-Alone Non-Verbal Logos and Other Trademark Styles: A Legal Perspective

Battle of the Nerds? Best Buy's Geek Squad® on Trademark Patrol

The FURminator® and Ads Touting Utility: Marking the Termination of Product Configuration Trademark Protection?

Holiday Inn Lights It Up With a Pair of Non-Traditional Trademarks

The Power of Federal Trademark Registration Remains Strong in Tough Economic Times

Steve Baird

Michael Olsen

Brad Walz

Brent Lorentz

Dan Kelly

Karen Brennan

Sharon Armstrong

Tiffany Blofield

Laura Gutierrez