The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is currently running this advertisement from a local law firm highlighting its “Total Partnership” program (BTW, love the website video, linked here):
Although the use of the term “trademarked” will make more than a few trademark types cringe, NLJ we know what you mean, so no worries, especially
Brilliant Trademark Advice or Baloney?
A few bits of trademark advice recently passed across my screen from The Marketing Blog: Turning Entrepreneurs Into Marketers — advice that I believe deserves some friendly comment and critique, leaving you to decide whether any of it rises to the level of brilliant trademark advice or sinks to the level of trademark baloney:
Minneapolis Trademark Seminar Countdown
Gentle reminder: This is your chance to get a solid introduction to trademark law and what some call trademarking. This amazing half day program on March 2, 2011, is being held in downtown Minneapolis, a pdf of the brochure is here.
The speakers for the 9 AM CST morning session include:
What Does “Trademark” Mean to You?
Inherent in the question posed by the title of this post is the fact that the word "trademark" has more than one meaning, in fact, multiple meanings in the English language.
Yet, some trademark types would have you believe that there is only one true meaning to the word "trademark" and that this meaning is
A Timely Introduction to Trademark Law
This is your chance to get a solid introduction to trademark law and what some call trademarking. This amazing half day program on March 2, 2011, is being held in downtown Minneapolis, a pdf of the brochure is here.
The speakers for the 9 AM CST morning session include:
IP Grammar . . . and Those Who Cringe About It
Last September, in my blog post entitled "What Does Trademarked Mean to You?," I wrote:
More than a few trademark types cringe when their clients or others say things like "let’s trademark it," "they didn’t trademark their logo," or "we don’t want to trademark this name," and, when they ask questions like "is
Why Marketers Don’t Give Two Hoots about Trademark Concerns‚Ñ¢
by James Mahoney, Creative director/writer at Razor’s Edge Communications
Okay, so I’ve read a lot of whining and agita about how marketers continually drive trademark attorneys to distraction with un-trademarkable names. And how advertisers drive those same attorneys to that same distraction with potential trademark infringements.
It’s time to let you in on a dirty little secret: we don’t care about trademark stuff. At least not a lot of the time.
Now before you break out the smelling salts, or the torts (aren’t they little tasty cakes, by the way?) or something to stop your palpitating hearts, let me explain a little further.
For big stuff, like our own trademarks or ones we think will really get us into trouble if we violate, then we do pay attention and we do care. Ditto for new things we come up with that we think will have some durability. That’s a key distinction here, folks: things we think will have some durability. Relatively speaking, there aren’t many of them—product names, for example, deserve attention.
For everything else we do, we pretty much know that the Smithsonian isn’t going to be calling us to enshrine the original. We’re also pretty sure that most of the stuff we come up with will live slightly longer than a tsetse fly only if we’re lucky.
That’s why we’re so cavalier about trademarks. Other than observing the big-picture rules (most of the time), we hit the threshold of diminishing return on trademark-related effort very quickly. It’s just not that valuable a use of our time.Continue Reading Why Marketers Don’t Give Two Hoots about Trademark Concerns‚Ñ¢
More Godin on Trademark? The Sequel
Last week we explored how at least some of Seth Godin’s trademark advice is a bit dated.
This week, let’s take a close and careful look at his advice concerning trademark registration:
Some lawyers will get all excited and encourage (demand!) that you register your trademark. This involves paying a bunch of money, filing a
More On The Fordless Blue Oval
What do you think, is Overstock.com selling bling with the Fordless blue oval logo?
As you may recall from my post back in September, Ford Motor Company is attempting to register the below shown non-verbal logo as a trademark for a variety of goods in Int’l Class 12:
And, as you may recall from Dan’s I See Blue Ovals post back in August, there are far more than a handful of blue oval logos out there besides this one:
The pending Fordless blue oval intent-to-use trademark application recently was examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and on October 23, 2009, the PTO found no substantive bases for refusal, but instead it issued an initial refusal noting only a couple of purely procedural or technical deficiencies, concerning the wording in the lengthy description of goods and the need for Ford to submit a claim of ownership to some related registrations (here, here, and here).Continue Reading More On The Fordless Blue Oval
Simply a Miscellaneous Design?
In case you’re wondering, this design is a federally-registered non-verbal trademark.
The owner identified it as a "Miscellaneous Design," without further detail or description (since it predated the more rigorous rules on supplying the Trademark Office with an accurate and detailed description of the mark).
The U.S. Trademark Office assigned to this design mark Design Code 24.15.25 ("other arrows") and in some cases 26.17.09 ("bands, curved; bars, curved; curved lines, bands or bars; lines, curved.").
So, now that you’re armed with all this valuable information, certainly you can answer three simple questions: (1) Who owns it? (2) What is it? and (3) What goods or services are identified and distinguished by this non-verbal design mark?Continue Reading Simply a Miscellaneous Design?