Posts Tagged ‘mcdonalds’

By: Mark R. Malek

I was interviewed about a case for an article in The Daytona Beach News Journal about a month ago, and I just haven’t gotten around to posting anything about it.  Apparently, some clown named Yosef Amar, owner of Joe Cool, Inc. noted that his company claimed trademark rights on the Bike Week event name based on the fact that he has been producing t-shirts and other products with the Daytona Beach Bike Week name on it since 1987.

I know that many of you have heard me say this before, but I’ll go ahead and say it again….are you kidding me?  This argument in and of itself completely misses the entire point of trademark law.  The purpose of trademark law is to protect marks that act as source identifiers.  In other words, a trademark is meant to identify the source of the good or service that it is being used on.  This normally means that if a consumer can identify the source of the good or service, they have come to identify a particular level of quality with that particular good or service.  For example, whether you are in Melbourne, Florida or Dickinson, North Dakota (random city), a Big Mac ordered from a McDonalds will taste exactly the same.  How many drivers have received that hunger pain while on a never-ending road trip and have seen the following sign: “McDonalds – next exit” and got off the highway?  It may not be the most desirable food in the world, but you knew exactly what you were about to get.  That’s because, as much as I cannot stand eating fast food (hard to believe because I used to love it), McDonalds has done a great job of protecting their trademarks.

Protecting your trademarks does not merely mean that you sue everyone who is using your trademark without your permission.  Yes, you have to enforce your trademark rights, but if they are worthless to begin with, what’s the point?  In order to ensure that the value of your trademark is not diminished, the trademark owner must be sure to provide a consistent good or service associated with that trademark.

Back to this ridiculous case – I wonder if this guy actually believes that he can make a case for trademark infringement against the local shop owners who are selling t-shirts that bear the name “Bike Week” on them.  According to the Daytona Beach Chamber of Commerce Website, Bike Week has been around since 1937.  Does Joe Cool, Inc. actually believe that since 1937 there have not been any t-shirts printed that bear the name “Bike Week?”  The good people of Daytona Beach are business savvy enough to know that there was a dollar or two to be made from hordes of motorcycle riders that descend on one location in Florida over a period of weeks.  Motorcycle enthusiasts generally overspend at such events, so I find it very hard to believe that it took until 1987 for someone to come up with the brilliant idea of putting the “Bike Week” name on a t-shirt.  That’s actually beside the point – simply putting “Bike Week” on a t-shirt does not provide one with trademark rights.  It is not as though putting “Bike Week” on a t-shirt made the consuming public identify that t-shirt as a “Bike Week” brand t-shirt.  The Hanes undershirt I am wearing right now doesn’t have anything printed on it, and Hanes has a trademark.  Joe Cool, Inc. is clearly not getting any meaningful trademark advice.

Apparently, Joe Cool, Inc. believes, however, that they are the first people to put the “Bike Week” name on a t-shirt.  Oh wait, I think I just figured this out.  Could this possibly just be a shakedown?  Could it possibly be the case that Joe Cool, Inc. is not trying to protect its State Registered Trademark, but rather just shake a few dollars out of the pockets of already struggling business owners?  Are you picking up the sarcasm yet?  Of course you are!  This is nearly the most illegitimate use of trademark protection that I have seen in a while, and almost rises to the status of Trademark Bully (See our trademark bully articles herehereherehere and here).

Luckily, the Daytona Beach Chamber of Commerce has hired a trademark attorney that I know to be very knowledgeable on trademark matters – Heather Vargas of Cobb Cole.  I think more than anything, I feel sorry for Ms. Vargas for having to deal with a guy like this, but I assume that when Joe Cool, Inc. knows what they are up against, they will surely back down.  However, if he does not back down, I would love nothing more than to watch as the Chamber of Commerce, or a collective group of its members, filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief to invalidate Joe Cool’s trademark.

"I think Joe Cool, Inc. is infringing on my Trademark Rights"

That brings up a good point – how in the heck did this trademark get allowed?  It seems as though someone was asleep at the wheel up in Tallahassee.  State Trademark registrations are entered by the Secretary of State, and there is not a very vigorous trademark prosecution process.  Generally, it takes only a few weeks to receive a State Trademark registration.  Please do not misunderstand my point.  I am not contending that State Trademark registrations are worthless – not at all.  I am just noting that they are not likely as strong as Federal Registrations.  In the end, I suspect that the scam artists behind Joe Cool, Inc. will be out of business soon.  After all, what would Snoopy think of this?

Gravatar Iconby Mark Malek

Do you remember that just a few days ago, in my previous article, I promised that I would continue to update you on the Facebook lawsuits that have recently been filed to prevent anyone from using either the word “Face” or “Book” in any way shape or form?  Well, as promised, here we go.  Back in August, Facebook sued Teachbook for trademark infringement claiming that Teachbook.com was riding on the fame of the Facebook mark (source).  This is another trademark dilution case.  Where is this all really going though?

Why must we fight over trademarks?

This is yet another continuation of Facebook’s war against anyone who uses the term “Face” or “Book” within any type of vicinity of each other. I appreciate that Facebook is pretty popular, but I also appreciate that Facebook is pretty new to the trademark game.  Allow me to compare this situation to another popular trademark – McDonalsd.  I have some respect for why McDonalds goes up in arms when anyone uses a “Mc” anything, but have you noticed that they have done it the right way.  McDonalds doesn’t go after anyone and everyone that uses “Mc” in any way (they’d have a tough go at it with the Irish, but I digress).

McDreamy himself!

For example, I know that the show, Gray’s Anatomy went through a season or two where some doctors were nicknamed using “Mc” – ok, I admit it, I watch the show, and know that they used “McDreamy” and “McSteamy” to nickname two of the doctors.  What do you want from me?  It’s a pretty good show!

Unlike McDonald’s, however, Facebook has unleashed their lawyers on anyone that uses “Face” or “Book” anywhere near the internet.  I think they may be taking it a bit too far.  I took a look at the Teachbook site and it certainly is a type of social networking site.  It is a self-proclaimed “professional community for teachers.”  Maybe this is a place where teachers can swap ideas.  Possibly even a place where some teachers may be of assistance to other teachers, where different styles of teaching can be shared, or even where lesson plans can be swapped.  I’m not a teacher, but I certainly think that this could do nothing more than help our students.

Helping Schools Makes Me Laugh!

I find it odd that Facebook, allegedly founded by a guy who just donated $100million to a school system, would come down so hard on a group of teachers.  Please do not misunderstand me.  I realize that Teachbook is not a site where just a bunch of teachers are swapping ideas.  Clearly, someone is trying to make money off of it, as is evident by the several banner adds that are readily visible on the site.  From a purely legal perspective, Facebook may have a point.  With that in mind though, I do not think that their fame in the “Facebook” mark automatically entitles them to the exclusive rights to the words.  Is the intent here to remove these words from the dictionary for anyone else to use?

Let me send a quick appeal to the PR department over there at Facebook.  Cut a deal with the Teachbook folks that allows the site to operate as if they are supported by Facebook.  Maybe allow teachers to link their Facebook profiles in teacher groups via Teachbook.  There could even be a great big banner on the front of Teachbook that reads a little something like “Facebook proudly supports the education of our youth and encourages teachers to share their successes on Teachbook.”  Who knows – maybe when someone new goes on to Teachbook, they can start a profile via Facebook.  Doesn’t that just drive more traffic to Facebook, thereby making it more attractive to advertisers and possibly increasing revenue?

Apparently, Greg Shrader, of Teachbook, has vowed a trademark battle with Facebook.  Really?  I don’t know how well Mr. Shrader may be funded, but I highly doubt it is as good as the funding that Facebook has.  I am glad that Mr. Shrader is going to fight Facebook’s claims, but Facebook might just try to outspend him in litigation.  All the best to Mr. Shrader in his fight.  I do, however, hope that Facebook decides to settle this one and also decides to find a way to live with Teachbook.

I guess my point is – just because you can sue someone for trademark infringement doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to.

by Jason Fischer

marc-randazzaIf you’ve been reading this blog for any period of time, you know that we like to point out when intellectual property owners try to use their IP to stomp on the little guy.  One should not confuse our material with that of whiny media types who try to paint IP owners in a negative light for using their rights correctly.  Professor Randazza has posted about an excellent example of this kind of misinformed, crybaby reporting.  In pointing out the inadequacy of one publication’s legal research, Marco manages to give us all a lesson in trademark registration basics.

H/T The Legal Satyricon

This story was originally posted back in April of 2009 on The Legal Satyricon.


by Jason Fischer

Short Answer:  No.  Probably not.

baby_sandwich

I call this one "the McBaby."  Should I try to patent it before McDonald's does?

McDonald’s Corp. is getting some recent attention in the blogosphere for a patent application, originally filed in late 2004, which describes its “Method and Apparatus for Making a Sandwich.”  What’s interesting to me about this news item is the array of different reactions that various people have to this kind of story.  Personally, it makes me laugh that McDonald’s paid a patent attorney an *expletive/deleted*-ton of money to write and prosecute a fifty-four page app, comprising twenty-three pages of drawings and flow charts and describing, in painful detail, how one might go about simultaneously preparing sandwich garnishes while “heating a pre-assembled meat and/or cheese filling”.  Clearly, my reaction is the same as the folks’ over at PatentlySilly.com.

The other response that I quite frequently see is one of outrage or consternation.  “How can they claim a patent for that?”  “Will they be able to sue me for how I make my sandwich?”  “This is what’s wrong with the U.S. patent system.”  “Yadda, yadda, yadda.”  “I love lamp.”  You get the idea.  This was Marc Randazza’s reaction when we had a conversation on the subject a few days ago.  Now I don’t mean to criticize or belittle anyone who has this initial reaction (obviously, Marc is no IP n00b), but it exposes the reactor as someone who doesn’t have a firm grasp on the intricacies of patent law.  This is nothing to be ashamed of, because the majority of the world doesn’t either.  Without digging into the details of each individual case, it’s easy to go off half cocked.

Read more...

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1585 access attempts in the last 7 days.