Genericide kills trademark rights. It has been alleged that “Tiffany setting,” encompassing the famous TIFFANY mark owned by Tiffany and Company (“Tiffany”), is merely a generic term for a type of engagement ring.
You may recall my DuetsBlog post regarding the lawsuit that Tiffany filed on Valentine’s Day against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) to protect
One of the unfortunate aspects of trademark practice is the permission that exists in the law to challenge the motives and intentions of people.
Unfortunate, because this permission is frequently abused, especially by less experienced trademark counsel, or perhaps when the strength of a case doesn’t seem like enough without injecting an unhealthy dose of
When I have watched the ad below around some savvy marketing and supply-chain management folks, the reactions have been generally been in the “wow – that’s really cool” vain. IBM seems to really be doing something right with its ability to help companies prevent counterfeit product, and clearly it’s important enough to its customers to
Coincidentally (or perhaps by design), Tiffany and Company (“Tiffany”) filed suit on Valentine’s Day against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) to protect its trademark with respect to engagement rings. We know from our prior post regarding Tiffany’s amicus brief filed in support of Christian Louboutin that Tiffany actively protects its brand.
If you are like me,
–Susan Perera, Attorney
Over a year ago, Steve and I authored a piece in the Minnesota Business Journal discussing two-faced brands, these are brands that use both a formal trademark and a less formal, often truncated, trademark.
Since then we have seen many brands move away from their historical trademark uses towards shorter truncated trademarks
There has been quite a flap surrounding the poster and invitation used by the University of Pennsylvania Law School to promote Penn Intellectual Property Group’s Fashion Law Symposium, scheduled for a week from tomorrow. The symposium appears to be designed as a serious affair, boasting an all-star cast of general counsel from the fashion
–Dan Kelly, Attorney
A few times each year, clients will call or write and inquire about some official-looking correspondence they’ve received about a trademark registration or application. That happened this week, and here’s the top portion of the official-looking correspondence (redacted):
You can see the full page here. If you read the fine print,
People obviously purchase substantial volumes of products over the holiday season. As much as this is a boon for legitimate retailers and manufacturers, it is also a boon for those unsavory Scrooges that choose to operate on the wrong side of trademark tenets. Let’s call them Counterfeit Clauses.
As a New York Times article recently reported, counterfeit merchandise
It’s not every day that a fine news publication like The Onion dips its toes into trademark pool. Given this, I was pleasantly surprised to see this parody about troubling competition to Yellowstone National Park. Granted, this article came out a couple months ago, but I still think its poignant.
Although plainly presented for comedic purposes
–Susan Perera, Attorney
Many companies have experienced issues with counterfeit products, but few have likely dealt with counterfeit stores. Over the weekend I was surprised to hear about counterfeit Apple Stores in China selling authentic Apple products.
New reports identify up to five Chinese stores mimicking Apple’s iconic store appearance down to the white Apple
