Posts Tagged ‘tm bully’

Scott Nyman

 

Last week, I spent some time on one of my favorite cities, Chicago. Between the Taste of Chicago, Giordano’s, Gino’s East, and the wide selection of craft and microbrews available, let’s just say I packed a little extra carry on for my return to Florida (and leave it at that!). But, all fat jokes aside, Chicago is a summer paradise for anyone who enjoys good beer. In the winter, it’s indiscriminately brutal.

In Florida, our beer selection is much more limited than our northern neighbors. Our specialty taps reach little further than Guinness, Heineken, and Landshark. While in Chicago, I made sure to spoil myself with the likes of New Belgium’s Fat Tire and 1554, Great Lakes Brewing Company’s Edmund Fitzgerald and Elliot Ness, and the local Goose Island’s 312. And, of course, I had an Old Style in Wrigleyville while rooting for the Cubs to triumph over the Sox (they didn’t).

Imagine my surprise when learning that Goose Island has recently been acquired by brewing behemoth Anheuser-Busch. The purchase most likely includes all trademarks and other  intellectual properties owned by company behind Goose Island beers, along with the breweries and recipes that made the brewery famous. I was even more surprised to learn that AB has been applying for federal trademark registration of the area codes of other beer loving cities. Being a Clevelander in my early years, I searched the local “216″ area code in TESS. Yep, AB filed the application for federal registration directed at the Cleveland, OH market. A quick search of other cities I’ve called home revealed additional registrations for Miami, FL’s “305,” but oddly not for Columbus, OH’s “614″ or Tampa Bay “813″ or “727.” Go figure!

This make me wonder if Great Lakes Brewing Company, a Cleveland native with a very excellent line of beers, is planning to oppose the mark. If anyone from Great Lakes is reading, I would love to help. Just writing this article is making me crave a Blackout Stout.

 

Check to see if your city has been covered in the Anheuser-Busch area code sweep:

http://tess2.uspto.gov

By: Mark R. Malek

In a press release dated June 15, 2011, the USPTO announced the appointment of Mary Boney Denison as deputy commissioner for trademark operations. Ms. Denison will oversee the examination and processing of applications throughout the trademark operation.  Ms. Denison was one of the founding partners of Manelli Denison & Selter and focused her practice on trademark prosecution and litigation.

This is just another example of the way things are changing in the USPTO for the better.  First we have a director (David Kappos) that has a background in intellectual property as the Chief IP Counsel for IBM, the largest patent filer in the US for as long as I can remember.  Now we have supplemented that experience with a seasoned trademark attorney to run trademark operations.  Things are on the upswing at the USPTO.

 

By: Mark R. Malek

I came across a story on the Businessweek Magazine Website that rang my trademark bully alarm.  It seems as though Entrepreneur Magazine, which publishes a magazine geared towards the interests of, wait for it, wait for it – entrepreneurs, is suing  entrepreneurs for trademark infringement.  As I was initially reading the story, I was thinking – ok, this author might not have it right.  Entrepreneur Magazine is probably only really going after folks who are putting out competing magazines and using the “Entrepreneur” trademark for their magazines.  Unfortunately, Paul Barrett did understand and was right on.

Entrepreneur Magazine’s latest victim is Daniel Castro, who operates the website EntrepreneurOlogy.com.  Daniel is described as being a serial entrepreneur, having started several different businesses. EntrepreneurOlogy.com is website that, essentially, promotes Mr. Castro as an aid to entrepreneurs and provides tools to “corporate executives to get back to the basics of entrepreneurship.”  Entrepreneur Magazine does have a trademark for “Entrepreneur,” among many others, as used in relation to “advertising and business services, namely, arranging for the promotion of the goods and services of others by means of a global computer network and other computer online services providers; providing business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating small businesses and permitting customers to obtain information via a global computer network and other computer online service providers and; web advertising services, namely, providing active links to the websites of other.”

Point of order – isn’t this exactly what entrepreneurship is?  At least a part of it?  For example, “providing business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating small businesses.”  Is that not the same as saying “providing business information to entrepreneurs?” Seems to me that, if I were Entrepreneur Magazine, I would be somewhat careful about trying to flex some trademark muscle against folks…especially against my own customer base.  Has this trademark registration been put to the test yet?  Seems to me as though suing your target audience is not a very bright idea.  How are entrepreneurs supposed to trust anything in a magazine for entrepreneurs that involves the advice of “sue your target audience?”

Time to play devil’s advocate.  Let’s say that I am the trademark attorney for Entrepreneur Magazine, and let’s say that my client comes to me with a list of potential infringers.  On that list are three magazine publishers that include the mark “Entrepreneur” in their title, and three websites that are titled “Entrepreneur” and that each provide business information for the use of customers in the field of starting and operating businesses.  I probably advise my client to ask the magazines to stop immediately.  I probably then tell my client that it is time to do a very in-depth analysis of the websites.  My question to my client is the following: “how else do you think this website should describe their target audience, i.e., how else would you refer to someone that is starting a new business?”  If the answer is anything remotely close to “it wouldn’t make sense to call them anything but entrepreneurs,” then I ask my clients to probably reconsider going after the website, especially if the website merely incorporates the word “entrepreneur” into their title.

If your trademark is the only way to say a particular thing, i.e., your trademark becomes the generic term, then it is not protectable.  For example, the following used to be trademarks: aspirin, trampoline and escalator.  Here are a few that I just can’t believe are still around: Band Aid, Popsicle and Jacuzzi.  Seems to me as though Entrepreneur needs to watch its step here.  I’m not saying that entrepreneur is becoming generic as to magazines for business start ups, I’m just saying that a trademark registration does not give them the ability to remove the word from the lexicon.

 

 

 

By: Mark R. Malek

Living in Central Florida, the story of the death of young Caylee Anthony, allegedly at the hands of her mother, has really taken over news.  The local media loves the case and, on average, at least between five and seven minutes of every local newscast is riddled with some sort of new development.  Right now the case is in the jury selection phase and, as you can imagine, there is much difficulty in seating a jury.

I normally do not follow the local news.  I find it to be almost disturbing.  Nowadays, it is just a series of this person shot that person, there was an accident that backed up traffic today, something happened at Disney, the weather is beautiful, and sports.  That’s not interesting enough to keep my attention.  Just put ESPN on in the background, and I’m a happy camper.  The Casey Anthony fiasco, however, has caught national attention.

The case really got on my radar about two days ago, as I was getting ready for bed and the local news was on the TV as background noise.  I heard the word “trademark,” which made me look up.  Then I saw Casey Anthony’s parents on the TV and wondered what the TV anchor got wrong.  I rewound the DVR to see what I had missed and, sure enough, the TV anchor did not get it wrong.  There was a trademark issue involving Casey Anthony’s parents (a pair that have not been getting some good press either).

According to this story, the Anthony’s filed a trademark application on Caylee’s name and has sent a demand to Café Press demanding that merchandise bearing the name “Caylee” be removed from the site.  Here are the results of a search I did on the CafePress.com site.

I am not so sure that this story is accurate.  I did a search of the USPTO records to view the application and could not find any trademark application for “Justice for Caylee” anywhere.  Nor could I find any application that included the name “Caylee” as any part of it.  I also did a search of the trademark records for the State of Florida and could not find any applications pending that might relate to this poor girl’s name.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that the article is accurate and that the grandparents of Caylee Anthony have filed a trademark application relating to Caylee’s name.  How are they using this in commerce?  Also, what is so offensive about a group of people that would like to make a little money and, at the same time see some justice done for this child (who I believe was about four years old at the time of her death, was found in a plastic bag dumped in a swamp behind the home of the grandparents, and whose DNA was found in the trunk of her mother’s vehicle)?  I understand that this case is emotional on many different levels and, to tell you the truth, there is no particular side that I support with respect to this trademark disagreement.  The folks who are selling these t-shirts are not exactly in the right (morally), and the grandparents have no trademark rights.

This is a sad case all around, and there is no winner here.  I just can’t believe that in the middle of this entire mess, trademark law has found a way to become an issue.

 

 

By: Mark R. Malek

According to an article on Domains.com, Facebook has filed suit against FacebookOfSex.com for trademark infringement.  According to another article on XBiz.com, this is related to the FriendFinder issue that I reported on last week.  I was really wondering about the details of what was going on with the “FriendFinder” trademark.

It seems as though the folks who run FriendFinder.com and AdultFriendFinder.com also run FacebookOfSex.com.  This is apparently one of their chat sites.  So it does not seem as though the fight is over “FriendFinder” as I had originally reported.  In the complaint, Facebook alleges that the launch of FacebookofSex.com was a “calculated scheme to capitalize on the fame of Facebook’s marks.”

For once, I am going to agree with Facebook and take their side on this issue.  When it comes to this lawsuit, I cannot call them trademark bullies.  As you know, I have been critical of Facebook’s tactics in the past.  See my articles here, here, here, and here.  This is not the first time that Facebook has encountered the need to stop the porn industry from using their mark.  You may recall in one of my previous articles that Facebook had to sue Faceporn for trademark infringement and, as of now, the Faceporn page is down.

I tweeted this story earlier this week (feel free to follow me @PTOLawyer) and one of the immediate responses I got back was from my good friend Patrick Anderson (Patrick runs an intellectual property blog – check it out http://gametimeip.com/.  He also tweets @pandersonllc).  Patrick’s response was very accurate – “I’ve never seen the ‘face book of sex’ used in commerce, but that’s one where FB just can’t sit on its hands…” I have to say that I agree with Patrick’s response.  If Facebook value’s their trademark portfolio, which they clearly do, then they have to stop this kind of activity.

I truly cannot think of a legal argument that would give FacebookOfSex.com a leg to stand on.  They are using Facebook’s trademark in its entirety in substantially the same classification, i.e., social media.  Sure these are two very different types of social media, but they are related nonetheless.  The likelihood is small that someone looking for Facebook would be confused if they landed on FacebookOfSex.com and saw some rather graphic pictures.  This trademark argument likely goes more towards dilution, i.e., diluting the value of a very famous trademark.  Facebook is, arguably, one of the more valuable trademarks out there and I believe that the dilution argument will be available for this case.

I will certainly follow this case, but I highly doubt that it gets too far.  I suspect there will be a rather quick settlement reached once FacebookOfSex.com comes to the realization that they are on the wrong side of the law with this one.


SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1582 access attempts in the last 7 days.