Trademarks

Posts on trademark law

The Value of ZERO – Expanding the Doctrine of Generic Trademarks

A “generic” term for a general class of products or services cannot be used as a trademark or service mark for the goods or services in those class(es), because the function of a trademark (or service mark) is to identify and distinguish the goods or services of one seller from those sold by all others. Terms such as “apple” cannot serve as trademarks for goods comprising the edible fruits of the apple tree, but other terms that were once valid trademarks, capable of identifying a single purveyor of certain goods or services, have also fallen victim to “genericide” and lost their trademark significance. Some are now so commonly used that the consuming public may not even recognize that these terms were once considered exclusive trademarks of individual companies, such as escalator, linoleum, thermos, and trampoline. (more…)

Close your eyes and transport yourself to the cereal aisle of your grocery store: can you picture the design of a box of original Cheerios™, color and all? General Mills recently tried, and failed, to obtain a federal trademark registration for the yellow color of their Cheerios™ boxes that they hope you’re picturing right now, and their struggle illustrates the high burden faced by applicants for federal registration of color marks in the United States. (more…)

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a landmark trademark decision that will pave the way for those with so-called “offensive” or disparaging trademarks to secure federal trademark registration for those marks. To date, the poster child for “disparaging” trademarks has been the Washington Redskins football team, whose name and logo have been the subject of increasingly vocal challenges by Native Americans and others as an offensive stereotype against Native Americans. (Ironically, even the members of the band The Slants, whose lawsuit eventually paved the way for the Redskins to maintain trademark registrations for the team name, were allegedly against the team’s use of the arguably offensive name.) (more…)

Trademark owners applying for “intent to use” applications risk loss of trademark rights if the identification of goods services in the intent to use application is broader than the actual intended use of the mark.

Brand owners generally want to protect a potential trademark as broadly as possible. Often, this leads to specifying as many goods or services in their intent-to-use trademark applications as might possibly be covered by the planned mark. If no proof of bona fide intent can be marshaled, the registration is vulnerable to attack.

A recent case demonstrates that dreaming big in trademark applications is not to be encouraged. While Kelly Services v. Creative Harbor did not result in a punitive cancelation of the mark’s resulting registration, it nonetheless made it clear that goods and services with only potential plans for use with a mark will be cut out of the registration when challenged. See Kelly Services, Inc. v. Creative Harbor, LLC, No. 16-1200 (6th Cir. 2017).

Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act does not define “bona fide intent,” but the Federal Circuit in Kelly Services required that “the applicant’s intent must be demonstrable and more than a mere subjective belief.” That is, the applicant must show more than a mere intention to reserve a right in the mark. Particularly suspicious circumstances that cast doubt on the bona fides of the application include: (1) excessive numbers of intent-to-use applications in relation to the number of products the applicant is likely to introduce; (2) unreasonably vague descriptions of the proposed goods; (3) excessive numbers of intended products; and (4) excessive numbers of desirable trademarks intended for use on a single new product.

To demonstrate the presence of their bona fide intent to use a mark, however, brand owners can do a number of things. For example, the owner can: (1) conduct a trademark availability search on the mark; (2) develop marketing materials for the brand; or (3) produce correspondence or documents mentioning the planned use of the mark, the licensing of the brand, the regulatory approval of the branded line or the business development of the brand.

Such evidence shifts the burden of proof back to the challenger, who must then produce a preponderance of evidence to the contrary – a much more difficult task in light of demonstrated bona fide intent.

PRO TIP: Before filing a statement of use, compare the identification of goods and services in the trademark application to the goods and services currently offered under the brand, then tailor the identification to the goods and services in use under the mark.

The cost of filing and maintaining federal trademark registrations with the USPTO just got lower.  On January 17, 2015, the PTO announced a $50 per class reduction in initial filing fees for trademark applications filed under the “TEAS Plus” program, while simultaneously introducing a new “TEAS Reduced Fee” (a.k.a. TEAS RF) program at the former TEAS Plus rate, but with less strict filing requirements. (more…)

Killing the Buzz: The “Highs” and Lows of Marijuana-Related Trademarks

KumarHeadshotThis post is the first in a series by Kumar Jayasuriya, attorney and Ober’s multi-talented Legal Research Manager.

 

May a company register a trademark connected to the use of a controlled substance, such as marijuana?

Recently, a federal court said “Yes.”  Started in 1974, the periodical magazine High Times reports on the medical and recreational use of marijuana and continues to advocate for the relaxation of state and federal drug laws.  High Times’ publisher, Trans-High Corp. (“THC”), owns the trademark HIGH TIMES for use on, among other things, “books about cannabis” and “magazines about hemp.”  In August of last year, THC filed an infringement lawsuit targeting Richard Reimers, a Washington State-licensed marijuana dispensary owner operating under the name High Time Station (“Reimers”).  In response to the suit, Reimers counterclaimed that THC’s trademarks be cancelled because THC had allegedly used them on unlawful goods not listed in the registration certificates.

Reimers’ counterclaim alleged sale of drug paraphernalia and controlled substances based on the claim that THC’s act of printing advertisements by third-party companies in its HIGH TIMES magazine violates the Controlled Substances Act.  In fact, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is expressly permitted by statute to inquire about compliance with federal laws to confirm that the trademark applicant’s use of the trademark in commerce is in fact lawful.  Use of a trademark on unlawful goods is grounds for cancellation.

However, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed Reimers’ counterclaim upon a finding that a trademark registration is only vulnerable to cancellation if the goods and services listed in the registration are proven to be unlawful. None of the goods and services in the THC registrations were unlawful, said the Court, because the Controlled Substances Act expressly permits publications and advertisements “which merely advocate the use of a similar material, which advocates a position or practice, and does not attempt to propose or facilitate an actual transaction in a Schedule I controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. 843.

The court dismissed (with prejudice) Reimer’s counterclaim for cancellation of THC’s federal registrations. This is not the last word on trademarks related to  unlawful goods.  In addition to the Reimer case in Washington State, THC has filed similar trademark infringement claims in Texas, New York and Colorado. It is just the beginning for protection of marijuana related marks.  As more and more lawful marijuana-related businesses spring up in the wake of marijuana legalization, trademark use will be only one of the many issues that presents a case of first impression to the nation’s courts.

Trans-High Corp., Inc. v. Richard Reimers, No. 2:14-CV-00279-LRS, (E.D. Wash. Jan. 12, 2015).

 

On September 25, 2014, the Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) granted the application of fTLD Registry Services (FRS) to operate a new Top Level Domain (TLD) exclusively for the banking industry: .bank. When general registration for the new TLD opens next year, banks and other members of the banking community will be able to operate through custom websites such as Local.bank, as opposed to the traditional LocalBank.com. To avoid the internet land rush for .bank extensions expected during the general registration window, banks with federally registered trademarks can get a 30-day head start towards TheirTrademark.bank by applying (and paying) for a spot on ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse registry. (more…)