Since launching almost ten years ago, we’ve focused on helping and guiding marketing/branding professionals, as we seek to facilitate their graceful collaborations with trademark professionals.

Our approach has strived to deliver valuable information, without the typical jargon and legalese.

It seriously borders the obvious to say that folks who connect with us here know

— Jessica Gutierrez Alm, Attorney

trolls

We’ve spent time discussing the patent troll phenomenon in the past.  Patent trolls are less pejoratively referred to as non-practicing entities, because they do not make or use the inventions covered by their patents.  Instead, these non-practicing entities operate by purchasing patents on various technologies, accusing companies of infringing those

– Jason Voiovich, Chief Customer Officer, Logic PD

It’s not a new reality show. Let’s take that off the table straight away. That said, one could be forgiven this year (of all years) for imagining a scenario in which retired basketball great Kobe Bryant teamed up with not-so-retired real estate sort-of great Donald Trump to

For years, Samsung and Apple have battled over intellectual property rights associated with each party’s smart phones. Apple sued Samsung in 2011 and the jury found that Samsung had infringed Apple’s trade dress, design patents, and utility patents. On May 15, 2015, the Federal Circuit upheld the findings regarding infringement of design and utility patents,

When the iPhone 6s was announced, the 3D touch was a heavily touted feature.  The touch screen can now sense how hard you’re pushing. Functionally, it’s a great improvement that gives users new ways to interact with programs. But a new trademark application filed by Apple on August 18, 2015 suggests that this may not

In the wake of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert leaving their respective shows on Comedy Central for newer pastures, John Oliver has emerged as a new beacon of political humor and satire.  If you haven’t watched his show, and especially if you considered the former two as having an obvious political slant, you should check

 –Susan Perera, Attorney

If you have a pup accustomed to gourmet dog treats from the Mall of America you might have an unhappy canine on your hands.  Megamall kiosk owner, Chewzy Dogs, has filed suit after its franchisor and maker of its dog treats abruptly ended its agreement to supply Chewzy Dogs with its trade

As the court ruled, and repeatedly reminded: "Toilet paper. This case is about toilet paper."

Just last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit enjoyed applying only a modicum of potty humor while deciding Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a case involving alleged non-traditional trademark rights in Georgia-Pacific’s Quilted Diamond Design embossed on the surface of toilet paper (shown above):

  • "Georgia-Pacific unrolled this suit against Kimberly-Clark, alleging unfair competition and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, for Kimberly-Clark’s introduction of its redesigned toilet paper."
  • "We review the district judge’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts in favor of the nonmoving party. . . . Therefore, despite the fact that the judge dutifully plied her opinion, we now wipe the slate clean and address Georgia-Pacific’s claims."

Actually, I think the court could have enjoyed itself even more with this case, since most agree double ply humor is far superior than single ply, especially when it’s on a roll.

Returning to the substance in hand, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Georgia-Pacific’s Quilted Diamond Design, found on the surface of Quilted Northern brand toilet paper — and made recognizable from the television commercials with cartoon quilters — "is functional and therefore cannot be protected as a registered trademark."

It is unfortunate for Georgia-Pacific that it was unable to capture both patent protection for a limited term and trademark protection for eternity. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive intellectual property rights, but as this decision painfully demonstrates, if planning, coordination, and great care is not exercised, any hope of eternal trademark protection will be wiped away.

As you may recall, I’ve emphasized the importance of legal and marketing types working together in graceful collaboration to stand a reasonable chance of avoiding the many pitfalls in creating valid and protectable traditional and non-traditional trademark rights (Furminator, Smash Burger, and Bawls Guarana).

But, this decision, rejecting trademark protection for the above-depicted federally-registered design trademarks, highlights the importance of not only having talented legal and marketing types working together for common intellectual property goals, but also, the equally strong need for very close collaboration between patent counsel and trademark counsel.


Continue Reading

   

We’ve spent some time here discussing the world-famous Coca-Cola brand. Most recently, David Mitchell wrote about the incredible consistency of the Coca-Cola brand over the past 125 years. A while back Dave Taylor wrote a nice Ode to the Brand of Brands, the King of Cola: Coke.

And, let’s not forget my humble suggestion that a roadside sign promoting Coca-Cola at a drive-in restaurant that actually sells Pepsi instead of Coke, might be a good example of an appropriate application of the initial interest confusion test.

But, what about Coca-Cola’s frequent reference to "taste infringement" — some cleverly novel and suggestive legalese apparently coined by the Coca-Cola brand a few years back with its launch of Coke Zero?

Putting aside Brent’s fair question of whether the ads are a good idea, some of my favorite ads have been the Coke Zero viral ads, where a variety of lawyers are punk’d on hidden cameras, led to believe they are being interviewed by Coca-Cola representatives to take legal action for "taste infringement" — against the Coca-Cola team down the hall, the rival team of co-workers behind the Coke Zero launch. This one is my favorite, with lines such as these:

"Are you aware that Coke Zero tastes a lot like Coca-Cola?"

"There might be some taste infringement issues."

"I think it’s basic taste infringement, I’d like to stick with that phrase."

"Basically, a patent/copyright, a little too closely."

The ads are silly and I suspect most viewers appreciate the ridiculousness of Coca-Cola suing itself, but I’m not so sure people understand "taste infringement" to be a ridiculous or faux-legal claim — especially in this environment of increased focus and attention on the expansiveness of intellectual property rights. So, perhaps you heard it here first, there is no such legal claim.

In The Great Chocolate War, as reported by Jason Voiovich, the legal claim that Hershey’s — owner of the coveted Reese’s brand — brought against Dove’s competing peanut butter and chocolate candy, was based on trade dress. Notably, there was no asserted claim of "taste infringement". No one owns the combined taste of peanut butter and chocolate, thank goodness.

That’s not to say, however, that there aren’t intellectual property rights impacting the human sense of taste. For example, with respect to trademarks, we’ve written before about the possibility of taste being the subject of a non-traditional trademark, but to the best of my knowledge, none has been acknowledged or even identified to date. If you have information to the contrary, please share your insights here.

Of course, there is a reason for the lack of or scarcity of taste trademarks. Any product intended for human consumption is unlikely a candidate for taste trademark protection given the functionality doctrine. So, Coca-Cola can’t stop another from selling a beverage that has the same taste as Coca-Cola, just because it tastes the same, unless of course, the maker of the competitive beverage hired away key Coke employees who unlawfully revealed the closely guarded secret formula. That is how trade secret litigation happens, not "taste infringement" litigation.


Continue Reading