When I recently snapped the above image of a t-shirt on display at a large retailer in the Twin Cities, it made me want to ask the same question many survey experts will ask of respondents to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists in the marketplace: Who put this out?
What percentage of respondents
We continue to anxiously await the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, especially given the Board’s recent genericness ruling in Sheetz of Delaware, Inc. v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., finding FOOTLONG generic for “sandwiches, excluding hot dogs.”
The question at issue in Frito-Lay’s trademark challenge
With all the golf coverage of the Masters Tournament and the coveted Green Jacket, this past weekend, it seemed particularly appropriate to report on a recent trademark case involving the miniature variety of golf: Putt-Putt, LLC v. 416 Constant Friendship, LLC (April 5, 2013 D. Md.).
So, I learned two things this weekend, Adam
It has been almost six months since oral argument before the TTAB over the question of whether the word “footlong” is a trademark or a generic name for a type of sandwich. What type of sandwich you ask? One about twice as long as a six inch sandwich, let’s say about twelve inches in length,
Knowing how Adidas (or should I say, adidas) jealously guards its three stripe design on shoes, and is notorious for protecting against not only three, but two and four stripe buffers as well, my eyes were drawn to this display of Nike Shox sport shoes at our local Finish Line retail store.
–Dan Kelly, Attorney
There has been a fair amount of ink spilled in the IP blogosphere about last month’s Georgia Pacific v. Von Drehle opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This is one of several cases that Georgia-Pacific has brought to stop the “stuffing” of off-brand (i.e. non-Georgia-Pacific
An in-depth focus on arguably the most important trademark issue to brand owners and their trademark counsel. The seminar will focus on the many faces of trademark confusion, with a special focus on initial interest confusion, reverse confusion, survey evidence, and post-sale confusion theories.
Promises to be a good program, we hope you join us, special guests Ron
–Dan Kelly, Attorney
Professors at the University of Pennsylvania and at UC Berkeley School of Law released a study this week conclusively titled “Americans Reject Tailored Advertising,” suggesting that there is high resistance among individuals to tailored advertising on the Internet. (Press release from Penn here, NYT coverage here.) Although I have been
Before the emergence of the Internet, there were two major conventional ways of doing intellectual property consumer surveys — mall intercept surveys and telephone surveys. Mall intercepts work best for branded, consumer products where there is a visual element to be tested. They are moderately expensive and require some incentive. Telephone interviews are good for brand names, genericness studies or other types of research where the respondent does not need to view a visual. Most telephone research requires no incentives.
The Internet, in theory, combines the best of both worlds. Internet surveys not only permit the asking of verbal questions and recording verbatim answers, they also permit transmission of visual images such as products, labels, logos and packaging. Internet technology also permits sound transmission. Transmission costs are minimal with an e-mail blast of 5,000 names costing about $800 or $160 per thousand. (Typical mall costs are $30-$40 per interview). Unfortunately, there is no telephone book for e-mail addresses, and in order to use this medium you have to hook into a vendor that has large opt-in consumer panel data bases. By using opt-in panels, you will bypass all the SPAM filers and anti-SPAM on-line watchdogs. Moreover, you have an instant, real-time tabulation process.Continue Reading Internet Surveys — Powerful Yet Perilous