Kim Kardashian West’s (“Kardashian’s”) company Kimisaprincess, Inc. won its motion to transfer a pending case against the company from Illinois to California. Danish makeup artist Kirsten Kjaer Weis (“KKW”) sued Kimisaprincess in Illinois alleging claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition against Kardashian’s company.

Kim Kardashian and her family are no strangers to Duets Blog or the Courts. See Kardashian/Jenner Trademarks, Kardashians Caught Without Makeup, But Not The Way You’d Expect, and Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

Danish makeup artist KKW sells and distributes her products with a stylized KW brand or with her full name through fancy retailers such as Barney’s. In contrast, Kardashian’s company sells products in less expensive superstores such as Target, CVS and online. Kimisaprincess sells a brand of makeup called “KKW Beauty” after her initials that was released in June 2017. The products are sold exclusively online.

Makeup artist KKW alleges that she and Kardashian’s company are direct competitors. Because of Kardashian’s fame and celebrity, it is likely consumers will mistakenly believe KKW’s products—despite its prior rights to the trademark—is associated with Kardashian. This will damage KKW and prevent KKW from controlling the reputation and goodwill that KKW has established for her products.

Kardashian’s company brought a motion to transfer the pending case to California. Her company argued that that there is better access to documents and witnesses in California where Kimisaprincess and Kardashian herself are both located. In addition, third parties such as Kardashian’s momanger (as she’s known by the press), Kris Jenner and the company that designed Kardashian’s KKW Beauty products are also in California. Plaintiff lives in New York. There are not people or documents at issue located in Illinois.

In opposing the motion, Plaintiff Danish makeup artist KKW argued that Illinois was an appropriate venue, because actual confusion between her products and the KKW Beauty products had occurred in Illinois during a survey conducted about the products. The Court found this argument to be unpersuasive, because the KKW Beauty products are sold nationwide, so confusion would also occur in California.

The Court noted that there would be a marginal increase in cost to go to California, but it does not create a cost where none was. Plaintiff KKW would have to travel to Illinois too.

The showdown between the Danish makeup artist (KKW) and Kardashian’s Kimisaprincess will take place in California. Do you think the dispute will end up on the “Keeping up with the Kardashians” reality show?

Normally when we talk about stripes trademarks , we’re talking about iconic sportswear brand adidas. An avid litigant with respect to use of “three stripe” designs on footwear and clothing, adidas is a regular feature here at DuetsBlog, where we have discussed disputes with lululemon, Puma, and retail store Forever 21. But today we’re talking about a different three stripe brand, the blue-red-blue and green-red-green three stripe designs featured by luxury brand Gucci. Not everything is new though. Gucci’s foil in this dispute is no stranger to stripe-infringement claims, as our friend Forever 21 makes another appearance.

Over the past year, Gucci sent cease and desist letters to Forever 21 regarding the sale of clothing and accessories featuring a familiar striped pattern. Following an exchange of letters, Forever 21 struck first, filing a complaint requesting declaratory judgment that its sale of the products does not infringe Gucci’s rights, and requesting that the court cancel Gucci’s registrations on the grounds of lack of secondary meaning and/or genericness. In its answer, Gucci asserted claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. Excerpts from Gucci’s answer displaying the clothing at issue are shown below (with additional examples here and here). 

 

In its answer, Gucci only addressed Forever 21’s non-infringement count. Prior to filing the answer, Gucci filed a Motion to Dismiss all the claims related to cancellation of Gucci’s registrations. On Monday November 6, the District Court issued an order granting the motion, providing Forever 21 with 10 days to file an amended complaint.  In the order, the court suggests that Forever 21 may have an uphill battle in pursuing these claims, stating

[T]he court is skeptical that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support its claims for cancellation based on lack of secondary meaning, aesthetic functionality, and genericism.

So while I’d love to get into the substance of whether Forever 21 has a chance at cancelling these “three-stripe” registrations, we’ll have to see whether Forever 21 is able to craft an amended complaint to overcome the court’s concerns. In the interim, I’m left considering Gucci’s three stripe marks alongside adidas’ three stripe marks. In reviewing each parties’ registrations, an interesting detail emerges. Both parties own registrations for stripe designs associated with clothing, but that doesn’t mean both parties have the same type of registered rights.

For adidas, it registered its stripes as trade dress for its products. For example, Reg. No. 3,029,127 describes the registered mark as “three parallel stripes running along the sleeve of a shirt, t-shirt, sweatshirt, jacket or coat.” The drawing of the mark is shown below.

Clearly, adidas’ registrations is specifically for a stripe patterned applied to jackets.

Gucci’s registered rights? Not so much. Based on the registrations identified in Gucci’s answer and counterclaim, none of Gucci’s registrations cover trade dress. All of the registrations instead appear to be for an image of stripes. The descriptions for Gucci’s marks are all similar to Reg. No. 4,379,039, which describes the mark as “a stripe containing three distinct bands of color with a red band in the middle of two green band.” The drawing for the registrations is simply a square with three stripes.

Does Gucci’s failure to register its mark as trade dress affect Forever 21’s ability to cancel the registrations for these design logos? Normally use as a trademark is on a tag, label, on the pocket, or emblazoned across the shirt. If Gucci’s actual use of the registered mark is limited solely to the trade dress along the bottom or cuffs of jackets, does it open up any potential claims for cancellation based on non-use? Does Gucci’s failure to register its mark as trade dress affect Gucci’s ability to assert that Forever 21 is infringing a federally registered trademark? I guess we’ll find out whether Forever 21 wades into these waters when (or if) it files its amended complaint. Stay tuned.

 

Cause and effect is difficult to establish when all the relevant facts have not been assembled.

We certainly don’t claim to have all of them here, with Rosland Capital’s current TV commercial.

But, it was easy to wonder about timing, after noticing William Devane’s omission of the previous “What’s in Your Safe?” tagline in favor of “Are You Safe?” — especially given this precious gem:

What’s in Your Tagline, A Strong Trademark?

On November 9, 2015, we questioned the strength of Capital One’s “What’s in Your Wallet” tagline:

“Capital One has taken no apparent action against Rosland Capital’s trademark registration for the tagline What’s in Your Safe? for “telephone ordering services in the field of precious metal ingots and numismatic coins” — the first registration it obtained was not stated in the form of a question (What’s in Your Safe) for “retail store services featuring precious metal ingots and numismatic coins; on-line retail store services featuring precious metal ingots and numismatic coins; retail catalog ordering services via telephone featuring precious metal ingots and numismatic coins.” Capital One didn’t even put in an extension of time to oppose either of those or What’s in Your Pocket? for a credit card holder, leaving me to wonder will any mark other than an identical one get Capital One’s serious attention?”

The USPTO files now reveal that Rosland Capital surrendered its What’s in Your Safe registration and surrendered its What’s in Your Safe? registration, oh yes, six months later, on May 17, 2016, so sorry for our delay in reporting these developing facts.

Are we causing a ruckus, or are we simply reporting the facts?

I’ve been meaning to write about a TV commercial for a while, but I keep forgetting to do it.

Perhaps I need the very product being advertised in the commercial, because what gained my attention was the clever tagline following the brand name: Prevagen. The Name to Remember.

Given the goods being sold, it struck me as a clever play on words, literally descriptive, but figuratively not, so the double meaning allows it to be registered without acquired distinctiveness:

“Prevagen (apoaequorin) is clinically shown to help with mild memory problems associated with Aging.“

I’ve never tried it, but since I’ve seen this ad more than a few times, I’m left wondering if I’m within their target market? So, I know I’m AARP eligible, but I can’t recall if I’m really a member.

Yet, I’m left wondering why the Prevagen folks haven’t sought separate registration for the tagline, standing alone, apart from the Prevagen brand name, as their specimen of use shows.

I don’t know, maybe they forgot?

Aaron Keller of Capsule noted, in another context, that “memory decay is abhorrent” for brands.

Anyway, going through this exercise has reminded me that we need to submit evidence of our continued use of this clever tagline — that I think I designed myself — for our legal services:

If You Want to Protect Your Name Remember this One®

And, when I search for the word “memory” on Ron Coleman’s Likelihood of Confusion® blog, this gem keeps coming up, perhaps the repetition exists for those with “mild memory problems.”

You might be wishing I’d be done by now, hoping I’ve disremembered what’s next, but I’m really feeling it currently, and our friend James Mahoney, has provided me with a hot tip that Tom Rush, American Folk Icon, will be performing at the Dakota Jazz Club in Minneapolis later this week.

You guessed it, or perhaps you’ve never memorized Rush’s hits or play list, but he’s the guy who has his Remember Song on YouTube, currently showing over 7 million views.

And, there’s more, before I omit something else, our friend Seth Godin also has weighed in on the subject of memory, I’m sure he hasn’t forgotten this one, nor has Nancy Friedman for that matter.

The good news is, as John Welch — from the TTABlog — reported way back in 2007, thanks to genericness, it would appear that anyone could sell card games called, you guessed it: Memory.

Apparently though, times and circumstances have changed, or the Rhode Island decision John discussed was not the final word, or perhaps someone simply failed to remember, because Hasbro, in fact, still maintains federally-registered rights in Memory for a card matching game.

Oh, by the way, back to our federally-registered tagline, searching the USPTO database for marks with both “name” and “memory” yields surprisingly few live ones, so broad rights, right?

Well, I’m not making this up, but as it turns out, there is presently a trademark fight, between two law firms, going on now for nearly five years at the TTAB and in Philadelphia federal district court, over the claimed mark: Remember This Name. Well, imagine that, and then commit it to memory.

Larry Pitts & Associates, P.C. is arguing that Lundy Law’s claimed Remember This Name mark is generic, and part of the public domain for anyone to use, oral argument is likely in January 2018.

There might have been more I wanted to say on this subject, I’m not sure, but I’m thinking that this has been plenty for a pleasant stroll down memory lane, at least for now. Do you agree?

The weekend of October 20-21, 2017, the Minnesota Golden Gophers and North Dakota Fighting Hawks traded wins in one of college hockey’s most competitive series. While watching the NCHC broadcast, an ad for the “Sioux Shop” appeared on screen. The ad explained that the Sioux Shop sells North Dakota fan gear at Ralph Englestad Arena (affectionately referred to by North Dakota fans as “the Ralph”), the 400,000 square foot, first-class hockey palace in Grand Forks where the Gophers and Hawks were facing off. I was surprised by the ad, especially in view of the fact that the University of North Dakota is no longer referred to as the “Sioux.”

Picture credit: Pinterest.

The Sioux Shop ad also reminded me of a recent experience I had when flying Southwest Airlines, in which a gate staff member was wearing a Fighting Sioux lanyard. As many frequent Southwest fliers can attest, Southwest’s employees often wear memorabilia of their favorite sports teams. I asked the staff member where she got the lanyard, as it appeared to be new. She replied that the University is still licensing the mark so as not to abandon it and that she picked it up from a licensed merchandiser. Apparently, you can also buy Fighting Sioux gear on Amazon.

As many hockey fans know, the University recently changed its mascot to the Fighting Hawks, from the Fighting Sioux, after backlash from the NCAA and a statewide ballot initiative approved the change. The “Fighting Sioux” is also one of several arguably-disparaging marks based on Native American culture that have been criticized in recent years. For example, the Fighting Sioux trademark is similar to the R-word trademark, which was challenged and later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court this summer. With this political and legal background in mind, I thought to myself when watching the Sioux Shop ad, “Didn’t North Dakota change it’s sports mascot to the Hawks, and, if so, why does the fan shop still bear the ‘Sioux’ name? Can NCHC, an NCAA conference, even run an ad for a shop selling merchandise bearing a name similar to one that the NCAA singled out as ‘hostile or abusive’?” Just what is going on here?

It turns out that the Southwest staff member was right: the University still licenses the Fighting Sioux trademark so as to avoid abandonment. The reasons appear to be threefold: First, the University agreed in a 2007 settlement with the NCAA that it would maintain the Fighting Sioux trademark. Second, the school appears to be concerned that if it does not license the trademark and control the flow of Sioux merchandise, someone will flood the market and stymy efforts to phase in the Fighting Hawks mascot and phase out the Fighting Sioux mark. Ironically, then, in order to effectively stop using the Fighting Sioux name, the University must “use” the mark. Third—and perhaps this is unfair cynicism—money.

The Lanham Act provides that a trademark may lose its viability through abandonment when the holder of the mark both discontinues use of the mark and intends not to resume use of the mark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127. The law states that nonuse for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. See id. Clearly, the University hasn’t run into that issue yet. However, the issue that the University does face is whether it is making a “bona fide use” of the Fighting Sioux mark “in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve” its right in the mark. Id. Reductions in the use of a mark may contribute to a finding of both prongs of the abandonment test. So can failure to take action against infringers. Of course, whether a reduction in use and a change in the scope and extent of licensing shows abandonment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The University’s current licensing strategy definitely toes the blue line on bona fide use. It appears that the University is only licensing productions of 9,000 pieces of merchandise at a time and in limited auctions. Such small offerings surely dwarf those available to fans in the years leading up to the mascot switch. On the other hand, the offerings are in the same category: sportswear. The geographic range of the sales is also smaller than before. In addition to the practically-discontinued use of the mark, the University’s licensing also seems disingenuous. One reason for maintaining the mark is to control the supply of Fighting Sioux gear competing with Fighting Hawks gear, and I’m not sure that purpose shows intent to use the Sioux mark (rather than mere reservation of it). I’m also skeptical that using the mark is helping transition efforts; as one source reports, new Fighting Sioux gear has been known to sell out very quickly, and fans continue to cling to the name–not to mention the Ralph, which has over 2,500 Sioux logos plastered throughout the arena in fulfillment of its late eponymous benefactor’s desire to protest a mascot name change.

Whether the University’s current use of the mark can stave off the threat of abandonment, while at the same time render the Fighting Sioux mark obsolete, remains to be seen. For now, North Dakota hockey fans are stuck between two mascots, and neighboring rivals look on in confusion, with no clear end in sight.

This medallion came to me several weeks ago, and I’m carrying it in my pocket each day:

Any idea where it came from?

Do you embrace tension?

Would you agree we’ve been making a ruckus?

If so, should we continue doing so, as the medallion reminds?

Sorry, no links or hints today, but stay tuned, much more to come, promise!

The parent company of fashion giant Coach found out that there is a lot to a brand name.

Coach’s strategic plan was to expand into a specialty retailer that would branch out beyond the COACH® brand.  To accomplish this strategy, Coach acquired both snazzy shoe company Stuart Weitzman and trendy Kate Spade & Co.

In doing so, Coach wanted to rebrand its parent company to reflect the three distinct brands under the corporate umbrella.  Coach chose the name Tapestry for its parent company.

The public backlash and slight drop in Coach (now Tapestry) stock price was unexpected.  Consumer’s felt that Tapestry sounded “musty” or “old.”  Others were reminded of the Carole King song and were not happy.

Consumers felt better when they were told they would still be able to buy their beloved COACH® bags.

The parent company Tapestry has more impact on the Wall Street shareholders than the individual consumers.  The company explained the origin of the name.  The Tapestry name reflects the long history back to its start in Manhattan in 1941 following the Great Depression and the creativity, craftsmanship, authenticity and inclusivity that the company was founded on.

Coach is not alone in branding a parent company.  Mondelez (formerly known as KRAFT) that owns the Oreos® and Nabisco® brands also received backlash when it unveiled its new name.  Consumers complained that the name Mondelez sounded like a dreadful disease.

With all the acquisitions occurring in the business world, the renaming of parent companies will be a fertile ground for creative agencies to obtain business.

What names do you think would have been less controversial for Coach to have adopted?

With the growing popularity of e-sports (multiplayer video-game sports competitions, often played by professional gamers for spectators–also stylized “eSports”), I’ve seen an increasing number of trademark disputes not only between video-game companies, but also between video-game companies and other non-electronics businesses selling physical goods or services.  It is interesting to observe the arguments regarding bridging the “virtual gap” between the physical world and the digitized world, in terms of whether consumers would actually perceive relatedness and confusion.

One example, and a timely update to one of my recent posts, was the potential dispute between Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (“MLB”) and Blizzard Entertainment, regarding Blizzard’s Overwatch game. The logo used for the Overwatch game had a two-tone background with a silhouette of a figure, arguable with some similarities to MLB’s well-known blue-and-white logo with a white silhouette of a baseball player. As predicted, after filing a request for extension of time to oppose, MLB never followed through with an opposition proceeding. And it seems that MLB didn’t convince Blizzard to make any changes, as the Overwatch League mark appears the same–so a positive outcome for Overwatch there. It seems MLB wasn’t concerned enough about potential confusion in light of the gap between the parties’ goods and services; although, in my view, the lack of concern was probably influenced by the significant dissimilarities in the marks.

Another example recently in the news is a new enforcement action by Adidas (or as their marketing folks prefer, adidas). adidas is often in the news regarding its aggressive enforcement measures, as we’ve blogged about on numerous occasions (such as here, here, here, and here).

This one is interesting as, unlike many examples we’ve blogged about, the enforcement target is not another shoe or clothing company, using a physical similar design with three (or two, or four) stripes. Rather, the target here is the Turner ELEAGUE, which offers popular e-sports competitions.

The ELEAGUE design logo includes an “E” design consisting of three lines, that (arguably) appears similar to the adidas three-stripe design. Turner has applied to register its mark in connection with various types of digital media and software in the field of electronic sports (Application No. 87065837), as well as various types of marketing promotion services, retail store services featuring “clothing,” and “clothing for use in online virtual worlds” (Application No. 87065846). See the “E” design mark below applied-for by Turner, as well as the mark next to the word “LEAGUE” as it typically appears on Turner’s website.

A couple weeks ago, adidas filed an extensive Notice of Opposition (over 100 pages) against registration of Turner’s applications.  The primary goods offered by adidas, and identified in its trademark registrations, are clothing, apparel, footwear, and physical sporting goods. Nevertheless, as argued in the Notice of Opposition, adidas also licenses its mark to be used in video games (e.g., on virtual players’ clothing, and in virtual signs and sports fields), and sponsors electronic sporting events and teams, all of which is helpful for the relatedness argument.  In addition, to the extent that Turner’s ELEAGUE application seems to also cover real-world “clothing,” rather than only  “virtual” clothing, adidas has a stronger case for relatedness. In industry news there have been some skeptical reactions to the dispute, but to be fair, the Notice of Opposition makes some decent relatedness arguments, so we’ll see how this one turns out. No reaction yet from Turner, as the Answer to the Notice of Opposition is not due until November 19.  I’ll be watching this one with interest–stay tuned for updates.

 

 

-Mark Prus, Principal, NameFlash Name Development

Janelle Shane is a research scientist who likes to play around with neural networks. Recently she’s been having fun investigating whether neural networks can replace traditional means of creative development. As a professional name developer, I’m watching her work closely because I’ve been told that my chosen career is about to be destroyed by the use of artificial intelligence to develop brand names.

Based on the results thus far, I’m not worried. While it is true that computers can develop names, I strongly believe that the judgment of a seasoned branding expert (like me!) will be necessary to identify names that will resonate with consumers. As evidence of my confidence, I provide some examples of names developed by artificial intelligence in the past year:

  • Paint Colors – Janelle’s experiments yielded names like Stoomy Brown, Stanky Bean, and Bank Butt. I’m pretty sure nobody would buy a paint called Stoomy Brown (which actually looks like a shade of green) or Stanky Bean.
  • Craft Beers – The AI developed names like Toe Deal, Sacky Rover, and Cherry Trout Stout. Given the proliferation of crazy craft beer names, some of the names developed by the neural network appear to be reasonable (e.g., Devil’s Chard, Whata Stout, and Black Morning), but you have to sift through a lot of “Toe Deals” before you get to a decent name.
  • Guinea Pig Names – While the AI names for guinea pigs are better (e.g., Funbees, Sporky, Furzy, and Farter) that is only because you generally don’t have to say the name in public. Can you imagine using “Farter” as a dog’s name? “Stay Farter!”
  • Superheroes – I really don’t think a superhero called Nana will be feared by an evil villain…although I’m heard of some pretty badass grandmas. And would Supperman’s superpower be the ability to put the fear of bankruptcy in the hearts of owners of buffet dinner establishments?

You get the point. Right now it is all fun and games and it is easy to separate the stupid names from the barely acceptable names.

But eventually the AI will get better, and that is when demand for my services will actually increase! When AI starts generating excellent names companies will be faced with having to pick a name from a list of 100 great names, and they will need the assistance of a branding expert to make that decision. Put me in coach…I’m ready to play, today!

One of my passions is to find common and favorable ground between legal and marketing types.

One of the readings during week three of Seth Godin’s intensive altMBA workshop reminded me of a great example to illustrate how a valid marketing goal can align with strong legal protection.

An excerpt from Seth’s All Marketers are Liars book was part of the reading material for a project on How Organizations Change, and this portion of that excerpt made me think of trademark types:

“Great stories are subtle. Surprisingly, the less a marketer spells out, the more powerful the story becomes. Talented marketers understand that the prospect is ultimately telling himself the lie, so allowing him (and the rest of the target audience) to draw his own conclusions is far more effective than just announcing the punchline.”

Trademark types can learn a valuable lesson here about the protection of traditional trademarks: Subtlety can yield immediately protectable, inherently distinctive and inherently strong marks.

We’re talking about the difference between suggestive marks on the one hand, the favored hand, and descriptive marks or generic terms on the other hand, the less favored trademark hand.

Let’s keep in mind though, when we’re operating in the realm of non-traditional marks, subtlety may not be your friend, as the story told there needs to be far more blunt, direct and obvious to build and enjoy trademark rights.

In searching our vast content on DuetsBlog, I’m reminded of something similar I wrote more than seven years ago now, and I’m not sure I can say it any better now, so here it is, again:

“We have spoken and written about not “hitting the consumer over the head” in the context of naming and placement on the Spectrum of Distinctiveness, instead, encouraging the use of suggestive as opposed to descriptive names and marks, but, let us not forget, there is a trademark paradox that does appear to reward use of a blunt instrument, called look-for advertising, at least when it comes to developing trademark rights in certain non-traditional marks.”

So, some subtle stories told in a name can make powerful trademarks with a broad scope of immediate protection. And, some will still require the help of an obvious and blunt instrument.

The key is knowing the difference and when each approach is required. My fear is that the USPTO’s growing obsession with failure to function refusals (here, here, and here) and mere information refusals will begin to spill more prominently into traditional trademarks?

Does anyone else see this happening before their very eyes?

In other words, to please the USPTO, are we needing to move toward being more blunt about whether even a traditional word mark is actually designed to perform as a trademark?

Let’s hope not.

Oh, and by the way, I was speaking above with subtlety about being past the half-way point (the dip) in Seth’s altMBA workshop, so I’ll be blunt now, it is amazing, it is transformative, do it!