You may recall that DuetsBlog informed you in May of 2016 (here) that Beyoncé filed suit in New York federal court against a company and its owners who were using the mark Feyoncé on apparel and other products, such as mugs. She has now dismissed the lawsuit—likely based on a settlement (although the settlement has not been reported yet, and if there is a confidentiality provision in the agreement we may never know for sure).

Beyoncé was understandably troubled when the company began using both Feyoncé (rhyming with her name, the only difference being the beginning letter) and “Single Ladies,” which is the same name as Beyoncé’s famous Grammy award winning Song of the Year. In her complaint, Beyoncé explains that the song “tells the tale of female empowerment – the protagonist celebrates her newly found status as a single woman in a dance club telling her ex-boyfriend (who is jealous of the attention that she is receiving from other men) that if ‘you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it.” Beyoncé alleged that defendants were “seeking to capitalize on the notoriety of ‘Single Ladies’… defendants are selling merchandise bearing the ‘Feyoncé’ mark – a misspelling of ‘fiancé’ intended to call to mind ‘Beyoncé’ and her famous song.”

Beyoncé brought a motion for summary judgment. In denying the motion, the court found that there were genuine questions of fact regarding whether there was a likelihood of confusion. It was not enough that the company had tried to “capitalize off the exceedingly famous ‘Beyoncé’ mark.” There were still questions as to whether consumers would believe that Beyoncé was associated with the ‘Feyoncé’ products.

Beyoncé takes intellectual property rights seriously (as we all should). You may recall we blogged about her efforts to protect intellectual property related to her daughter Blue Ivy Carter, here, here and here.

We have likely not seen the last of Beyoncé’s efforts to protect intellectual property.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court decided it will hear the Brunetti case, and take a closer look at Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, the portion forbidding federal registration of trademarks having matter that is scandalous or immoral.

So, it appears my big prediction for 2019 is pointing in the affirmative direction:

“In terms of my big trademark prediction for 2019, it will be revealed whether the scandalous bar to federal registration is invalidated, whether or not the Supreme Court agrees to hear Brunetti.”

Now that the Court has decided to review Brunetti, it will be the one to decide whether the “scandalous” and “immoral” bars to registration violate the First Amendment, not the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

So, perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts was foreshadowing a review of Brunetti, when he was speaking in Minneapolis, and said: “Obviously, if any court finds an Act of Congress unconstitutional, we will take it . . . .

To piggyback on what I wrote back in October:

“There are plenty of good reasons for the Court to decide the constitutionality of the “scandalous” and “immoral” language, separate and apart from the disparagement language found to violate the First Amendment in Tam (here, here, here, here, here, and here).”

“If the Court does hear Brunetti, let’s hope Section 7 of the Lanham Act — the provision expressly noting that federal registrations are issued ‘in the name of the United States of America‘ — won’t be some uninteresting and ignored ‘nuance’ of trademark law to the justices.”

You may recall, I previously said this about the Federal Circuit’s overreach in Brunetti:

“What is striking about the CAFC ruling is its breadth. It isn’t guided by the Supreme Court’s Tam decision — requiring viewpoint discrimination — as the Tam Court found with disparagement.”

“The CAFC did not decide whether the ‘scandalous and immoral’ clause constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, instead it seized on mere content as lower hanging fruit for invalidation.”

“The problem with focusing on content alone is that it proves too much. Trademarks, by definition, are made up of content, and many other provisions of federal law limit the right to register based on content, so, if this analysis holds, what additional previously-thought-well-settled provisions of federal trademark law will fall? Importantly, some even allow for injunctive relief: tarnishment.”

I’m thinking the Court will decide that the Federal Circuit went too far in Brunetti, and it will find a way to retain the “scandalous” bar to federal registration, though I’m doubting the “immoral” bar will survive, so stay tuned.

What are your predictions dear readers?

Congratulations to Stanford University’s Women’s Volleyball Team, winning the NCAA DI National Championship this past weekend in Minneapolis’ Target Center, defeating Nebraska in Set 5:

The competition was incredible, a real seesaw battle, Stanford winning Set 1 (28-26), Nebraska Set 2 (25-22), Stanford Set 3 (25-16), Nebraska Set 4 (25-15), setting up the Set 5 tiebreaker.

Even from our elevated vantage point, it was a challenge to ignore Stanford’s wild band, erratic cheerleaders, and bizarre dancing tree, during the many breaks in the action.

The Stanford Tree, not in the University’s official logo and seal, instead the spastic and gyrating Tree mascot, is simply “a member of the band” — as the University has no “official” mascot.

 

As the Sets progressed, an interesting pattern emerged, but not related to the random, spontaneous, and irrreverent motions and defiant gestures of the merry band of cheerleaders and Tree mascot. Any choreography appeared impossible to script.

No, the pattern I noticed was that each of the first 4 Sets was won by the team that had its back to the band, in other words, turned 180 degrees away from the Stanford Tree.

 

 

In contrast, the losers through Set 4, always faced the Tree, in defeat, coincidence, I think not.

The teams switched sides at the close of each Set. During Set 5, with its back to the Tree, Stanford was up 8-7 at the half, then switched sides again to face the Tree, but somehow was able prevail, in the end, while facing the Tree, winning the 5th and final Set: 15-12.

So, with all this turning away from the Tree mascot, positioning the team to win a National Championship on the one hand, and disavowing the Tree mascot on the other hand, specifically rejecting it as not the University’s mascot, I’m left wondering, who owns it?

In other words, clearly there is intellectual property wrapped up in the Tree mascot costume, I’m seeing both trademark and copyright at work here, but really, who owns it?

Put yet another way, who should Reese’s call for a co-branding opportunity to have the Tree mascot appear on packaging for these little gems, or perhaps, the gems themselves?

Can the University automatically own the intellectual property in an “unofficial” mascot? What are the legal distinctions, if any, between official and unofficial mascots?

For what it’s worth, disavowing the Tree, and its unofficial status, apparently hasn’t prevented the University’s payment of NCAA fines against Stanford when the Tree is especially unruly.

At Stanford, it appears that the student selected by the band to perform as the Tree for the academic year, wears the costume created by his or her predecessor from the previous year.

As to copyright, do you suppose there is a work for hire arrangement in place? So, who would you call to license the IP associated with the Tree? Here is a list of the apparent creators.

–James Mahoney, Razor’s Edge Communications

Every now and then, I find pearls floating in the tide of print advertising. These two, for example.

First is the Kiton ad, one of a series the company is running. I liked the whole look and feel of it right away, but didn’t know anything about the company.

I like it even better after doing a little research and learning that Kiton prides itself on its fabrics and the quality of the clothing it creates using them.

These ads work on multiple levels. First, they stand out both for their striking simplicity and for the visual puzzle: why the red dot covering the head? (At least, it’s red to my color-challenged eye.)

Beyond that, the more you look at one of the ads, the more attention to detail you see. There’s deep creative thought behind these.

More important, the first ad you see imprints visual clues that unmistakably identify every subsequent ad you see as a Kiton. In the sea of luxury-good advertising, you too often have to glance at the company name to see whose ad it is.

As I’ve mentioned before, one of the big creative questions is, “How can we indelibly link the company or product name to the creative idea?” Kiton’s campaign achieves this, not least by linking the red-dot head with the red dot on the Kiton i.

Incidentally, the dot over the head probably has an additional benefit for Kiton. Rates and residuals for models vary depending on the image used. Because the Kiton models are unidentifiable, their rate is likely lower than if we could see their faces. Small change in the larger scheme of things, but a benefit for Kiton nevertheless.

The other pearl is this ad for the Omega Seamaster Diver 300M. In case it’s not clear, the tuxedoed Daniel Craig is up to his chin in water. It’s a great visual that pays off the promise that the watch “will take you from the bottom of the sea, to the center of attention, and the top of the world.” Form and function married with fashion illustrated by a brilliant concept.

A recent Mall of America and Nordstrom shopping trip (with visiting extended family), coupled with some initial moments of admitted boredom, led me to wandering through the shoe department:

Let’s just say, the stroll through the shoe department made it all worthwhile, to capture the above image, showing Louboutin’s latest fashion sense, leading to my mental stroll down memory lane:

Louboutin Red: Blending Into the Background

Louboutin Red-Sole & Surrounding Contrast: An Implied Trademark Limitation

Louboutin: Still Waiting on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Louboutin Wins Second Circuit Appeal, Sort Of . . . .

Louboutin & Lessons Learned

That seven month span of blogging was pretty special (February 12, 2012 through September 17, 2012), actually making the case for narrowing Louboutin’s red sole color trademark registration.

In the end, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the amendment of the red sole color registration to compel the limitation we said was implied: Contrast with the remainder of the shoe.

This, of course, opened the door to requiring that Louboutin tolerate monochrome red shoes, as any red soles on a monochrome red shoe would not possess the necessary constrast to be seen.

Since then, Louboutin has been seeking global protection for his contrasting red-color trademark applied to shoe soles, with a recent win in the EU, however, he’s currently been snagged in India.

Given the striking shoe above, other Louboutin spiked shoes below, and knowing Louboutin’s comfort with non-traditional trademarks, filings at the USPTO seemed plausible, but no, none yet:

Afterall, the spikes appear purely ornamental with the potential for acquired distinctiveness, and no functionality, well, unless this footwear is designed for, shall we say, painful kicks in the pants.

At this point, the Louboutin brand appears synonymous with the red-sole of a woman’s shoe, which probably explains the non-verbal trademark below being applied to other fashion items:

 

 

So, we’ll keep a lookout for new non-traditional trademark filings by Louboutin, while you keep a lookout for any look-for advertising that might set the stage for claimed rights in a spiked mark.

The popular UGG® branded sheepskin boots are at the heart of a dispute in the Northern District of Illinois. Deckers Outdoor Corp. (“Deckers”) owns 29 federal registrations for the trademark UGG in connection with numerous goods and services, including footwear, clothing, wallets, passport covers, plush toys and retail store services. The company also has four pending applications for UGG to add to this family of UGG trademarks.

Deckers sued Australian Leather Pty. Ltd. and its owner (“Australian Leather”) for trademark infringement and patent infringement for selling “ugg” boots.

UGG® branded boots have become very popular. Fashion forward celebrities, such as Blake Lively and Sarah Jessica Parker, are often pictured wearing the comfortable boots as they go about their daily lives. This provides the brand with free publicity and even more exposure.

Defendant Australian Leather alleged that the ugg mark was generic for sheepskin boots and that the doctrine of foreign-equivalents supported this conclusion. The parties brought cross motions for summary judgment on these issues and others.

Steve Baird has written about trademark genericide before on DuetsBlog. Generic trademarks are those where a brand name has become synonymous with a general class of product or service. Famous examples include: aspirin (Bayer lost this valuable mark), elevator and linoleum. Losing a trademark to genericide allows competitors to benefit from the originating company’s goodwill without being guilty of trademark infringement. Companies have undertaken advertising campaigns to prevent or combat their trademarks from becoming generic. For example, the Velcro Companies came up with the hilarious video, “Don’t Say Velcro,” explaining that the product is a “hook and loop” with the brand name VELCRO®. The company even came up with a sequel video called “Thank You For Your Feedback” that Steve Baird wrote about previously on DuetsBlog.

Luckily for Deckers, the Illinois Court found that its UGG® trademark was not generic. Deckers introduced a survey undertaken in 2017 in the United States of 600 women between the ages of 16 and 54 wherein 98% of the respondents viewed UGG® as a brand name. These results were even better than past surveys commissioned by Deckers in 2004 where 58% of the respondents viewed the mark as a brand, and in 2011 where 89% of respondents viewed UGG® as a brand name.

In turn, Australian Leather asserted that “ugg” was generic among American surfers in the 1970s. The Court found this group to be too narrow. Australian Leather also introduced evidence of “ugg” being generic for sheepskin boots in Australia. Not surprisingly, the Court did not find this evidence to win the day. The Court noted that genericness in another country could be at least relevant to consumer perceptions in the United States. However, it is important to remember that whether a trademark is generic in another country has little bearing on whether it is generic in the United States. Trademark rights are territorial. Having a registered trademark in the United States does not give a company rights in that mark in Australia or other countries.

The Court explained that the foreign-equivalents doctrine did not warrant another result. It explained that “the doctrine is not a perfect fit for English to English [terms, rather, the doctrine] is generally used to analyze non-English terms used in the American marketplace.” Steve Baird did a nice job of explaining the appropriate use of this doctrine in his post, here.

What genericide stories have you heard about?  It can be an ongoing and costly battle for brand owners to protect their valuable intellectual property rights.

When ideas from different realms converge in a single moment of time, a new blog post is born.

Catcalling” — albeit a rebranded, reimagined, or redefined version of it — recently has been front and center in a political Twitter storm and remains a lightning rod in the non-stop news cycle.

So, imagine my surprise also to see the sturdy Cat construction-oriented brand calling my fashion-forward daughter to select it for her brand new, back-to-school footwear look this coming Fall:

 

Photo credit: G. Baird

This isn’t our first rodeo with Cat footwear. We previously kicked heels with my son’s steel-toe boot choice, also covering the careful timing of Cat’s truncation from the four-syllable Caterpillar.

While the brand extension from construction and earth-moving equipment to boots makes perfect sense, especially the steel-toe variety, here is the explanation for women’s casual dress shoes:

Photo credit: G. Baird

Marketers, the extension seems unnatural and forced to me, but I’d love to hear from our readers who have a stronger vantage point on whether this brand extension will work long term for Cat.

What called me to create this story for you is the hidden trademark strategy to be unearthed.

“Footwear” is one of those broad descriptions of goods that the USPTO will accept as sufficiently precise. Selecting it facilitates and better positions your brand for line extensions yet to come.

In other words, narrowly selecting “slippers” or “steel-toe boots” over “footwear,” in trademark filings may leave you boxed in when seeking to expand or extend the lines of your present brand.

Not sure when Caterpillar first introduced women’s casual dress shoes under the Cat brand, but it has owned federally-registered rights in the word CAT for “footwear” for more than a decade.

Caterpillar likely began using CAT with steel-toe boots, but given its broader registered rights, I’m guessing it didn’t lose much sleep wondering if it could grow into those broader registered rights.

In fact, this Cat has become quite active enforcing its broader rights at the USPTO’s TTAB, here.

— Jessica Gutierrez Alm, Attorney

A dog toy display at a local pet store caught my attention recently.

I did a double take on seeing the familiar fonts, coloring, and packaging.  Not long after, I happened to find these at a different pet store.

Once again, the familiar labels, coloring, and bottle designs caught my attention.

While certainly reminiscent of the actual brands, these all appear to be clear examples of parody.  The Chewy Vuiton case is particularly instructive here.  In that case, Louis Vuitton sued dog toy manufacturer Haute Diggity Dog for trademark infringement and dilution over a Louis Vuitton-themed dog toy.

The court held that the dog toy was indeed a successful parody, and Haute Diggity’s use of CHEWY VUITON did not constitute infringement or dilute the Louis Vuitton trademark rights.  In analyzing Haute Diggity’s parody defense, the court defined a parody as a work that (1) references the original/famous brand, (2) but makes clear that the work is not the original/famous brand, and (3) communicates some articulable element of satire, ridicule, joking, or amusement.  While recognizing the similarities between the dog toy and Louis Vuitton’s designer bags, the court also articulated several differences.  For example, the court highlighted that the dog toy is smaller, plush, and inexpensive—clear distinctions over LV purses.  The court characterized the dog toys as “simplified and crude,” rather than the “detailed and distinguished” purses.

While Jose Perro, Dr. Pooper, HeinieSniff’n and the others I recently stumbled on are probably parodies as well, they beg the question of where the parody line falls.  The Chewy Vuiton court made clear that there must be some readily identifiable differences between the original mark and the parodied work.  But how many differences are enough?

Consider the Snif peanut butter jar, for example.  While the words and the items themselves are different, there seems to be some room for suggested association between peanut butter and dog toys.  Peanut butter is frequently used as a dog treat by many owners.  Surely a dog owner might believe Jif peanut butter had entered the dog toy market.

What do you think?  Are all of these clear cases of parody like the Chewy Vuiton toys?

Although perhaps the most important question is: why are there so many dog toy parodies?

Recently, a friend and I were watching The Bachelor—I know, I should be ashamed. During one of the commercial breaks, a spot appeared on-screen showing a woman wearing an elegant dress walking through a hallway. She turns into a doorway, and blue, shimmering light projects onto her face, as if she was underwater. A speaker off-screen says, “Open the door to a beautiful new experience for your home.” The commercial cuts to a small bottle with a spray nozzle on top. The bottle has a typical shape, but its packaging includes, near the top of the bottle, a “No. 3.” Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Immediately, my mind goes to Chanel’s timeless No. 5 perfume.

The speaker continues, introducing “Glade Fine Fragrance Mist.” The woman then crosses through a vertical air-water surface, as if she is entering a Stargate. She passes the boundary and floats in the adjoining room, which is filled with water. The speaker describes the “mist” as a bouquet of “florals, beechwood, and lush fruits that whisper a story on the air.” We also learn that the mist is infused with “essential oils” and “artfully crafted. Imagination? We have a fragrance for that.” The screen then shows the “Glade” logo, and the speaker identifies “S.C. Johnson, a family company.”  Take a look for yourself:

After watching the commercial, my friend remarked, “Hey, doesn’t that sound a lot like Chanel No. 5?” I thought the same thing. Just take a look at the branding for the advertised “Glade Atmosphere Collection”:

Now compare the “No 1,” “No 2,” “No 3,” and “No 4” for the above bottles to the Chanel No. 5 registered mark (which, by the way, has been registered since 1960, whereas the “Glade Atmosphere Collection” mark has only been registered since 2017):

Notice the similarities? The ‘o’ of the “No” is super-script in both marks. And, as anyone who passed Kindergarten will surely agree, one cannot help but intuitively notice that No. 5 follows 1, 2, 3, and 4. Combine that with the fact that air fresheners are similar to perfume, in a sense, and you have a formula for some potential consumer confusion. The use of small bottles and elegant advertising furthers the connection. And when you consider the historical fact that Coco Chanel picked No. 5 from a batch of perfumes labeled 1 through 5 (as well as 20 through 24), one cannot help but think that the similarities are more than just coincidence and happenstance.

Although floral scents are common, that Chanel No. 5 has a distinct smell of jasmine, bergamot (citrus/spicy orange), rose, lemon, linen, neroli (bitter orange), ylang-ylang (woody, an “essential oil”), lily of the valley, and iris makes the comparison to Glade’s Atmosphere Collection even more uncanny. Indeed, Glade “No. 1” has scents of jasmine and rose, in addition to cedar and apple. No. 2 smells of sweet pea and pear. No. 3 exudes beechwood, starfruit, and coconut—not that far off from No. 5’s tropical notes.  And No. 4 is a “velvety kiss of patchouli [a member of the mint family] and amber.” These scents certainly seem similar to Chanel’s No. 5, even if spread across multiple bottles.

What do you think? Do Glade Nos. 1 through 4 come dangerously close to No. 5? Given the similar marks and smells, one cannot help but make the comparison.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Some incredible moments last longer than others, and when the stars are all lined up, they can even translate into a movement. Yet, the blistering loss in Philly proved that our hope of being more than a host for Super Bowl LII, wasn’t meant to be.

Minnesota was seriously buzzing for the past week, following the incredible final-second touchdown score by Stefon Diggs, to launch the Vikings past the Saints, sending them to Philly to be favored as the likely NFC champion for Super Bowl LII. No more Dilly Dilly, Vikes couldn’t Bring it Home.

Sadly for the Minnesota Vikings and their fans across the country, the meaning of the Minnesota Miracle and Minneapolis Miracle phrases have been relegated to a brief moment in history — memorable no doubt, but memorable and meaningful for much less than most hoped for here.

Trademark filings reveal that the Minnesota Vikings hoped for more too, and likely hoped to cash in more too, within twenty-four hours of the infamous catch, the team sought to turn the meaning of Minnesota Miracle and Minneapolis Miracle into exclusive and proprietary trademark rights.

Team ownership filed a few used-based applications (here and here) and a pair of intent-to-use trademark and service mark applications (here and here) covering virtually every good/service known to men, women, and children, including the proverbial kitchen sink. Are you wondering how many of those items could withstand a challenge on the requisite bona fide intent? Let’s say I am.

It remains to be seen whether the USPTO will issue the increasingly common failure to function and informational refusals against the use-based applications.

It also remains to be seen whether the buzz around the Vikings several trademark applications concerning those phrases will last longer than our week of euphoria.

Perhaps even most interestingly, no one seems to be reporting about the apparent lack of alignment on who owns what surrounding the Minnesota Miracle and Minneapolis Miracle phrases, with quarterback Casey Keenum (a little slow on the draw) filing for both phrases as trademarks (two days after the Vikings did), and with Stefon Diggs apparently selling his own shirts, here: