Does Sanas Health Practice Ltd. (“Sanas Health”) think that Daenerys or Sansa will win at the end of the wildly popular Game Of Thrones series and ultimately sit on the Iron Throne?  Sanas Health filed two applications for the mark “QUEEN OF THRONES” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Interestingly, the Applicant’s name Sanas is extremely similar to the Game of Thrones show leading character Sansa Stark. This may be merely a coincidence but could be argued to enhance confusion between the GAME OF THRONES® marks and the applied for “QUEEN OF THRONES” mark.

I guess there could even be those out there that think Cersei will not die in the final season (not me) and instead will end up on the Iron Throne at the end of the series. But, I am thinking most people agree with me that she will not survive (and will likely be killed by one of her brothers – my bet is on Jaimie).

Not surprisingly, Home Box Office (“HBO”) believes that Sanas Health is trying to capitalize on the goodwill of its famous GAME OF THRONES® mark and brand; and thereby, diluting its distinctive and famous GAME OF THRONES® marks. HBO further believes that the “QUEEN OF THRONES” mark is confusingly similar with its marks. Accordingly, HBO has filed a Notice of Opposition against these applications (No. 91246195).

By way of background, HBO has thirty-one (31) registrations and applications for GAME OF THRONES marks (including design marks and GAME OF THRONES with additional words such as GAME OF THRONES CONQUEST®, GAME OF THRONES THE THREE-EYED RAVEN®, GAME OF THRONES ASCENT®, and GAME OF THRONES BEYOND THE WALL) in connection with various goods and services.

Sanas Health applied for its “QUEEN OF THRONES” mark in connection with:

  • “Castor oil for medical purposes,” IC 5 (Ser. No. 87/839,043); and
  • “Nutrition counseling; Dietary and nutritional guidance; Providing a website featuring information about health, wellness and nutrition; Providing information about dietary supplements and nutrition,” IC 44  (Ser. No. 87/922,698).

This is not HBO’s first time seeking to protect its marks related to the Game Of Thrones series and brands. HBO has three (3) trademark registrations and an application for WINTER IS COMING®, which is the House of Stark-centric premiere episode of the Game of Thrones series. The Purple Wine Company attempted to register the “WINTER IS COMING” mark in connection with wines. HBO opposed the application and the Purple Wine Company failed to respond. The mark is now abandoned.

The Examining Attorney found the recent application for “WINTER IS COMING” filed by Chen Yufang to be confusingly similar with HBO’s WINTER IS COMING® marks and issued an Office Action preventing registration. We will have to see if Mr. Yufang serves a response to this Office Action or abandons the application. If he does not abandon the Application and is able to overcome the Office Action, I would anticipate that HBO would file a Notice of Opposition against his application for the famous “WINTER IS COMING” mark.

Fans of the Game of Thrones series are aware of the fanciful word “Dracarys” as a command to Daenerys’ the fire breathing dragons. HBO opposed an application filed by Hangzhou Wanry Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.  (“Hangzhou”) to register the “DRACARYS” mark in connection with numerous automobile related accessories. HBO opposed the application and Hangzhou failed to respond. The mark is now abandoned.

Fan favorite Tyrion Lannister proclaimed, “That’s what I do. I drink and I know Things” in season six of Game of Thrones, and HBO’s official trailer for the sixth season included this saying. When Francis Collins from Florida tried to register this mark in connection with t-shirts, HBO relied upon its common law rights associated with its sale of t-shirts having the “That’s what I do. I drink and I know Things” mark to oppose the Application. Ms. Collins defaulted and her application for the mark is now abandoned and dead.

DuetsBlog has featured other posts related to the famous show and its brand, including Martha’s post here, and mine here.

The wait is almost over.  The final six episodes of Game of Thrones start on April 14.  We will have to see if there is a King or Queen who ends up on the Iron Throne and what happens to the “QUEEN OF THRONES” applications.

We’ve been stalking Kevin O’Leary’s nutty Mr. Wonderful trademark application, for a while now.

In April, we thought the USPTO would refuse registration of Mr. Wonderful for nuts, based on this:

In June, we were shocked to see the USPTO missed issuing the obvious refusal, and in August, we noted and reported that The Wonderful Company LLC had filed an Extension of Time to Oppose.

Just last month, O’Leary’s trademark counsel filed a Request for Express Abandonment of the Mr. Wonderful trademark application, and the USPTO promptly issued a Notice of Abandonment.

One of O’Leary’s most famous lines from Shark Tank seems to fit this very moment, as we mourn the loss of O’Leary’s Mr. Wonderful trademark application for roasted nuts, with a popular meme:

Florida start-up entity BAD MOMS, LLC beat the producer of the movie with the same name to the punch! Specifically, the company sued the producer for declaratory judgment and an injunction preventing the movie producer from using the mark in connection with any of the Florida company’s goods and services or those related thereto. Both parties have pending applications for BAD MOMS and related trademarks. The lawsuit came after the movie producer sent demand letters to the Florida entity asking it to abandon its applications for BAD MOMS trademarks and cease using the mark. The movie producer brought counterclaims against the start-up company.

The Florida start-up company was founded by a single mom working her way through college and law school. The company organizes and hosts events for single-moms to share experiences, provide education and create a network. In addition, the company sells wines and spirits under the BAD MOMS mark.

Earlier this month, the dispute heated up when the movie producer asked a federal judge to sanction the start-up company for failing to follow a discovery order. The attorney founder of the company denied that the motion is warranted and asked for an extension of time to respond to the motion. The Court granted her request. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Monday, October 29, 2018.

I have not seen the “BAD MOMS” movie but it was popular enough to spawn a sequel. Many of my friends told me it is a fun movie to watch, even if it is predictable. I heard that the following movie scenes were hysterical:  (1) grocery store scene; (2) limping dog scene and (3) the meeting to discuss the school board.

We will have to wait to see who wins the lawsuit and if the trademark dispute spurs more interest in the movies and/or the Florida company’s events and products.

Welcome to another edition of Genericide Watch, where we consider brands on the edge, working hard to maintain brand status and exclusive rights, while trying to avoid trademark genericide.

The primary meaning to the relevant public decides genericness, so trademark owners will try to influence how consumers understand the word, to maintain at least 51% brand meaning.

As we’ve written before, one of the ways to spot a brand on the edge is to find the word “brand” on product packaging, usually with the claimed owner’s preferred generic name for the goods.

That is one way of telling or reminding consumers it’s a brand name, but saying so, doesn’t necessarily make it so, especially when the “preferred” name is a mouthful or unnatural.

Popsicle is one of those on a mission to prevent its trademark rights from melting away. Having said that, even if Popsicle dips below 50% brand meaning, the visual identity is still ownable:

The word was coined almost a century ago, so Unilever is asking the folks to not use it as a noun, instead as an adjective modifying the noun: ice pop. So, will the folks follow the instructions?

By the way, love this vintage typeface for Popsicle, which used to be the subject of registration:

Ironically, it calls to mind a similar typeface, questioning whether Mission Popsicle, is eh, possible:

Anything is possible, but do uses of visual puns like this help (or hurt) to melt Popsicle as a brand?

One of the most common defenses to patent infringement is that the asserted patent is invalid. The reasons for invalidity regularly range from lack of utility, to incorrect inventorship, and even to fraud (as I’ve recently written about). Often, the defendant asserts that the patent is invalid for lack of novelty or non-obviousness–pointing to some piece of evidence that the defendant says conclusively shows that the invention was already in the public domain before the plaintiff even applied for the patent. That evidence is called invalidating “prior art.”

Prior art can spell the unexpected demise of an otherwise valid patent, and it comes in many forms. For several decades, published prior art (not to be confused with prior art in the form of prior uses or sales) consisted of already-existing patents (and applications), trade journals, drawings, articles, websites, standards, whitepapers, etc. But Congress expanded the scope of published prior art dramatically in passing the America Invents Act in 2012. Whereas before prior art consisted merely of “printed publications,” post-AIA, prior art also encompasses things that are “otherwise available to the public.”

The larger–and more modern–universe of possible published prior art is easy to imagine. For example, prior art references are no longer limited to traditional publications and documentary evidence. Instead, additional forms of multimedia come into play–which is fitting in today’s multimedia-packed times. Videos, movies, broadcasts, and recordings all now qualify as prior art, so long as they are available to the public.

But despite this expansion, litigants have not yet fully taken advantage of the change. There have been a few recent uses of video as prior art, such as the iconic iPhone keynote speech made by the late Steve Jobs demonstrating a technology described in an Apple patent. Ironically, in commenting on the “bounce-back” effect that was the subject of the patent, Steve Jobs stated, “boy have we patented it.” But Apple failed to patent it fast enough after the speech.

https://youtu.be/-3gw1XddJuc?t=29m7s

Samsung used clips from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey to argue that Apple’s design patent for the shape of a tablet was invalidating prior art.

Apple really seems to be taking the brunt of video prior art challenges.

Just one week ago, a Federal district judge in the Northern District of Florida addressed–apparently for the first time–whether a YouTube video could constitute prior art. The court, in HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, 4:16-CV-336 (MW/CAS) (Dkt. No. 133), held that a YouTube video can constitute prior art and that YouTube videos are “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” Not exactly a groundbreaking finding to someone of my generation, who grew up with YouTube and the internet. Indeed, the USPTO’s own training guides (slide 15) specifically state that YouTube videos are a perfectly acceptable form of prior art. The USPTO has stated that videos qualified prior to the AIA, but there is conflicting authority.

The plaintiff in HVLPO2 had argued that the particular YouTube video in question was uploaded on a random account, so no one interested in the art would have found it. The court pushed back in eccentric fashion, stating:

It appears that Plaintiff is unfamiliar with how YouTube works. A familiar user would know that you don’t need to search for a particular channel to watch the videos uploaded on it. For example, if you want to watch a video of a cat skateboarding, you can search “cat skateboarding”; you don’t need to know that it might have been “CatLady83” who uploaded the video you end up watching.

The court held that the YouTube video in question appeared within the first 20 videos when using appropriate search terms on the site. “Surely, the effort involved in composing a basic search query and scrolling down the page a few times does not exceed the ‘reasonable diligence’ that the law expects of a hypothetical prior art subject.” I couldn’t agree more, and I recommend this fun cat skateboarding video:

But even though most YouTube videos are generally accessible, not all are available to the public. For example, YouTube videos may be “private” or “unlisted,” potentially removing them from the “otherwise available to the public” category or at least undermining the argument for their accessibility. Thus, as even the court in HVLPO2 noted, the defendant still has to prove the existence of public access to the video prior to the applicable date. This can be accomplished by proffering screenshots of the video in the browser and evidence of that video’s publication date (which is disclosed on the YouTube website and many other video sharing platforms).

Besides the above, there are few other examples of videos (online or otherwise) being used as prior art. This is probably due in part to the current difficulty of searching the vast amount of video and audio–as opposed to text, for example–available on the internet. But as computer learning gets better and better, I expect audiovisual prior art will play a bigger role in both patent prosecution and litigation, so long as that prior art is “otherwise available to the public.”

You may have heard of a little movie called Star Wars. If you haven’t, well, I’ve got some movies for you to borrow. The film was released in 1977, and soon spawned a trilogy of movies that are among the most popular film franchises in the world. Fast forward forty years and eight of the nine triple-trilogy movies have been released, along with spin off movies such as Rogue One and the soon-to-be released Solo. However, the new Solo movie has created a spin-off of its own: a lawsuit filed by a U.K. gamemaker claiming that Lucasfilm’s movie and subsequent advertising infringes on his trademark rights in the mark SABACC.

The complaint was filed by Ren Ventures (“RV”) and its licensee Sabacc Creative Industries and the main issue involved is which party owns rights in the SABACC name and trademark. From the best I can tell, the name Sabacc was coined by George Lucas (the creator of Star Wars) or one of his co-writers at Lucasfilm. The game is mentioned in the original 1977 Star Wars movie and is referenced throughout the Star Wars universe of books and movies. For example, Han Solo “famously” won his spaceship the Millennium Falcon in a Sabacc game. That story likely plays out in the plot of the new Solo movie, which likely explains why Sabacc is prominently featured in advertising related to the movie, like this Denny’s commercial.

But does Lucasfilm’s use of SABACC as a fictional card game in movies and books create enforceable trademark rights? I haven’t seen any current use of SABACC with any specific goods or services, so there doesn’t appear to be any traditional trademark usage (affixed to goods or their packaging). However, Lucasfilms has sought and obtained registration for a number of similar features of the Star Wars universe, as you may recall from this Handy List of Star Wars References that Might Get You Sued. These registered marks include LIGHTSABER, THE FORCE, JEDI, and others. Of course, these marks are used with toys and other merchandise, making Lucasfilm’s claim to trademark rights a bit easier.

In fact, Lucasfilms distributed a licensed Sabacc card game in 1989. An image of the rules are below, but it appears this was a limited distribution.

Given that SABACC is a term coined by Lucasfilm and used only in the Star Wars universe, what type of Jedi mind tricks is RV using to assert its own rights in the SABACC name? Surprisingly, they’re relying on some ancient dark magic – a trademark registration. According to the complaint, RV sought to adopt a trademark for a game that mixed the rules of poker and blackjack. The complaint alleges that RV “searched the public domain for names” for such games, and the search revealed the names Pojack, 727, 727 Poker, Home Card, and Sabaac (ed note: one of these names is not like the other…). It’s unclear what RV meant by searching the “public domain,” as that phrase is normally used for copyright protected works that have lost their protection. Nonetheless, RV filed an application to register the SABACC mark for various computer game software and entertainment services. The application was published for opposition on June 7, 2016 and, after no third-party opposed, a registration issued on Aug. 23, 2016.

Although Lucasfilm actively enforces its rights at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, likely with the assistance of numerous watch services, its hard to fault Lucasfilm for not opposing. After all, even with all that Disney money, it might be difficult to justify a watch notice for each every made up element from the Star Wars universe. Regardless, Lucasfilm eventually learned of the registration and filed a Petition for Cancellation on May 1, 2017 with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”). Lucasfilm filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and, shortly thereafter, RV filed an infringement action and requested suspension of the cancellation proceeding at the TTAB.

RV has begun use of the SABACC game to promote online games, including at the iTunes store. A screenshot of the store is shown below:

You’ll notice that there are a number of word choices in the description that reference the Star Wars universe. This includes the reference to a “Cantina” (the Mos Eisley Cantina plays a major role in the original Star Wars movie), the word “galaxy” and the phrase “far, far away” (A reference to the films’ opening credits), and a reference to Cloud City, which plays a major role in the Empire Strikes Back. The use of a single one of these might not be concerning, but all of them in combination with Sabacc? Coincidence, I’m sure…

Setting aside Lucasfilm’s potential claims for trademark and copyright infringement, the facts strongly suggest that Luasfilm has a claim of unfair competition against RV. Based on all of these “coincidences,” the facts strongly suggest RV is attempting to capitalize on the goodwill and popularity of Star Wars. RV has essentially created the exact same game from the movies and books, is promoting the game utilizing similar imagery of robots, and utilizing words and phrasing uniquely associated with the Star Wars franchise to promote the game.

RV seems to be placing all of its eggs in the basket of “Lucasfilm didn’t use the mark in commerce and therefore we established valid trademark rights.” Unfortunately, there is at least one allegation in RV’s complaint that they might break a few of those eggs:

when consumers encounter Plaintiff’s pre-existing SABACC brand video playing-card game in the marketplace, they are likely to mistakenly believe that Defendants are the source of, and/or sponsor or endorse, Plaintiff’s SABACC brand video playing-card game, and/or that Defendants, the upcoming Solo Film, and/or Defendants’ Hand of Sabacc Commercial is/are otherwise associated or connected with Plaintiffs, Plaintiff RV’s SABACC Mark, and/or Plaintiff SCI’s pre-existing SABACC brand video playing-card game

The allegation arguably eliminates any need for Lucasfilm to establish use in commerce of the SABACC mark. The allegation suggests that the mere use of playing a Sabacc game in the movie or a in a commercial creates a likelihood of confusion with RV’s video game. If that’s all that it takes to create a likelihood of confusion, it makes it pretty easy for Lucasfilm to agree and simply gather the evidence of Lucasfilm’s use of Sabacc games in its films, moves, books, and related merchandise since 1977, and assert its counterclaim for infringement based on these prior rights.

With an upcoming premiere date of May 15 at the Cannes Film Festival, and a U.S. release date of May 25, there isn’t much time for the parties to work out a settlement. I’m not one with the Force and certainly can’t read minds, but I have a feeling this lawsuit won’t change Lucasfilm’s timeline.

How much do I believe in federal registration of trademarks and brand names? Well, this much:

I’ve always been a big fan of practicing what you preach. Actually walking the talk. Not just talk.

That mindset helps explain why we stuck with the suggestive name of this blog, even after the experts recommended against it several times, for SEO and other reasons. They do agree now.

Anyway, the registration issued in the nick of time, given my true fortune just two days earlier:

Seriously though, obtaining federal registration of a personal brand name can be a bit challenging.

A common refusal when personal names are involved is that they merely identify a person, and they fail to function as a mark, the very refusal the USPTO initially issued in my particular case:

“Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, is a personal name that identifies only the name of a specific individual; it does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services.”

“In this case, the specimen shows the applied-for mark used only to identify the name of an individual and not as a service mark for applicant’s services because it is used to identify the author of blog posts, but does not separately indicate the source for any service. Applicant has applied for services including providing information in the field of law. The specimens shows the applied-for mark being used merely to name the author writing the posts, and to identify a particular individual and give information about him. The specimens include a short biography or “about the author” post with the name of the author or individual at the top, and several posts that show the applied-for mark included only as “By Steve Baird.” This shows the applied-for mark being used in a by-line, attributing authorship, but not identifying source. The applied-for mark is not used in association with the offering of any service in a way that would make it a service mark.”

Fortunately, I’m surrounded by really bright, passionate intellectual property and trademark attorneys, and in this case, our Tucker Chambers came to the rescue, with this winning response.

And, thankfully Tucker had some decent facts to work with, especially given kind commentary of some generous giants from both the legal and marketing fields, two of our core audiences.

Trust me, the irony has not escaped me, that one of these generous giants recently allowed the registration for his blog’s name to lapse, and the other giant likely prefers to Just TM It instead.

I’ve never professed to resemble a purple cow, but my mother and father did teach me to follow the beat of my own drum, after taking in a variety of different perspectives to settle on my beat.

So, if you have a personal brand name that truly functions beyond indentifcation to indicate the source of goods or services, my hope is that you will consider federal registration to help protect it.

Keep in mind, personal brands can go beyond an actual name to embody a non-verbal image too, where consent of the individual so identified is of record at the USPTO, hello Ralph Lauren:

Personal brands also may include nicknames, like Mr. Wonderful aka Kevin O’Leary from Shark Tank fame, who is seeking registration of Mr. Wonderful for roasted nuts, hello Wonderful:

 

So, I’m left thinking that Mr. Wonderful best get crackin’ on his anticipated response to the inevitable likelihood of confusion refusal that he’ll be experiencing in the not-to-distant future.

Carvanaonline car dealer and operator of “a higher state of car buying” — sports a halo in its non-verbal logo shown above, but is it an angel when using the Google name and logo in t.v. ads?

In other words, is the use licensed by Google or could it be defended successfully without permission as trademark nominative fair use? Dear readers, what do you think?

In the meantime, a good friend Steve Feingold (who wears a halo well), will be delivering a Strafford webinar next month on Co-branding — maybe we can ask him to weigh in on this topic?

Mike Lindell, has built an impressive business around a pretty simple brand name and trademark:

We’ve previously written about the MyPillow trademark, noting the apparently narrow scope of rights it enjoys, as a result of the coexistence with some pretty similar marks, including this one:

Earlier this year, My Pillow filed a complaint in federal district court in Minnesota, against LMP Worldwide, owner of the above federally-registered and incontestable trademark registration.

The complaint alleges breach of a 2013 settlement, federal trademark infringement and unfair competition, Minnesota deceptive trade practices, Minnesota unfair competition, and asks for damages, lost profits, and cancellation of the above-referenced federal trademark registration.

The complaint is interesting reading, and it appears the notion of any peaceful coexistence is no longer an option if Mr. Lindell has his way, especially given the allegations regarding breach of contract, actual confusion, keyword violations, and false advertising.

Pillow talk about the settlement terms will be most interesting, as only cryptic passages are public.

Suffice it to say, when you’re spending $4 Million each week on advertising the MyPillow brand, as the complaint alleges, I’m thinking it’s hard not to believe LMP isn’t enjoying an enormous windfall.

–James Mahoney, Razor’s Edge Communications

Awhile ago, I wrote about how casting decisions almost always make someone cranky. Lately I’ve been seeing lots of commercials that speak to the flip side of the crankiness factor.

Creative teams are always on the lookout for ways to connect with the zeitgeist. Most of the time, if you see a “hip” reference in an ad, it’s already gone mainstream and it ain’t hip anymore.

But advertising can move the social needle and get more people to migrate their views from the fringe of the bell curve into the big bulge of it. The more we’re exposed to an idea, circumstances or conditions, the more we tend to accept them as within the norm.

Case in point is the increasing portrayal in advertising of nonconventional families and pairings.

The first time or two some people see this, it can be jarring for them. But for the majority of people, I venture, this reaction fades over time as the imagery becomes part of the mainstream. I think one result is that while an individual’s feeling about, say, mixed-race couples might not change, regularly seeing nonconventional portrayals helps move people closer toward at least tolerance, if not acceptance.

Incidentally, despite the popularity of nonconventional casting in ads, there isn’t some vast coordinated conspiracy at work here, though some may suspect that. The advertising/communications community isn’t monolithic, except in its desire to connect with target audiences and to appear tuned in. That means independently latching on to the latest nifty trend.

So how do you “authentically” ride a social trend? In a word, subtly.

Here’s an example:

Years ago, we did a marketing video that included a planning session in a typical conference room and featured a half-dozen people representing various departments and responsibilities.

One of the actors we cast was a young woman in a wheelchair. The crew made two shots of her delivering her lines; one where the wheelchair was obvious, and the other, where only elements of the chair were visible and not immediately noticeable.

I told the editor to use the second shot.

“But don’t you want people to see that she’s in a wheelchair?” the producer asked.

“Not obviously so,” I replied. “The idea here is for the audience to focus on her and what she’s saying. The power of the wheelchair is that you don’t see it right away, if at all, and that it’s irrelevant to a person’s ability to contribute and be good at the job.”

The point? When nonconventional casting is not the star of the show, advertising can influence attitudes as well as sell product. When you make it the star—”look how hip we are”—you’re more likely to irritate people rather than influence them.