Welcome to another edition of newly filed configuration trademark applications at the USPTO, here is the latest; it is quite a specimen:
The question for the day though is whether the claimed mark actually functions as a trademark to indicate that the goods come from a single source.
The claimed mark is described this way
It is easy for some to get all tied up in knots at the USPTO when facing challenging grounds for refusal against federal registration of a claimed non-traditional trademark. Not Bottega Veneta.
Last week the Swiss-owned fashion house and luxury brand was able to persuade the USPTO to approve for publication the three dimensional knot
If you were a Band-Aid brand adhesive bandage, and you were cut, would you protect yourself?
Brent, sorry I couldn’t help myself, I’m still enjoying your Louis Vuitton waffle-maker post.
With that intro, let’s turn another page to the Genericide Watch category, here at DuetsBlog:
In focusing attention on the first item in
I’d venture to say that virtually every product sitting on a store shelf is crying out "try me" — some more colorfully than others, some more subtly than others, some more creatively than others, some more persuasively than others. However, most don’t just some out and say the words.
Assuming that to be the case, is it right that only one sauce brand can actually come out and say it?
Hat tip to GuestBlogger Mark Gallagher of BlackCoffee for providing the photo on the left and raising the question.
Turns out the "TryMe" brand has a long history, and it was first registered in 1926 with these style and format limitations (making reasonable a single syllable pronunciation with a silent "e"):
Then TRYME registered in 1996, again as a compressed mark, but this time without any style or format limitations (making the "TryMe" usage possible and still supporting the registration), and it now appears from the photos above, that the brand owner favors a compressed style that encourages a two syllable pronunciation ("TryMe").
I’m not sure if James Brown ever promoted the "TryMe" brand, but it might be a nice fit . . . .
It all leaves me wondering whether this two-syllable usage and migration undermines the validity of the trademark, by placing "TryMe" closer to the category of non-protectable informational matter.
For a sampling of other words and phrases found in certain contexts to be merely informational and not worthy or capable of trademark protection, see below the jump.Continue Reading TryMe? Trademark or Informational Matter?
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.Continue Reading Holiday Inn Lights It Up With a Pair of Non-Traditional Trademarks