Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

April 2011 Trademark Group Lunch


Published on

Topics covered in this month’s trademark group presentation include Trademark Document Retrieval 2.0, case law updates concerning topics including right of publicity, natural scope of expansion, bona fide intent, related goods, and Google Adwords in Europe.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

April 2011 Trademark Group Lunch

  1. 1. Prosecution Group Luncheon Trademarks April, 2011
  2. 2. TM POA ≠ Change of Correspondence Address <ul><li>File Revocation/POA to replace prior attorneys, and can also change address </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be signed by client NOT new attorney </li></ul></ul><ul><li>File change of correspondence address to change name, address, etc. of attorney or client, IF attorney is already of record </li></ul>
  3. 3. Trademark Document Retrieval 2.0
  4. 4. Jimi Hendrix’s ROP - RIP <ul><li>Washington state passed amended </li></ul><ul><li>Right of Publicity statute recognizing </li></ul><ul><li>an individual’s ROP, regardless of </li></ul><ul><li>recognition of ROP in person’s home state </li></ul><ul><li>Defendant files DJ vs. Hendrix estate in view of lawsuit asserting TM and © claims and “spector” of ROP claims on website </li></ul><ul><li>Holds language of WRPA unconstitutional – notes that Indiana is the only other state trying to make such a broad claim </li></ul><ul><li>Experience Hendrix LLC v. Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2011) </li></ul>
  5. 5. PTO Can’t Naturally Expand <ul><li>Appeal of refusal of HB & Design for </li></ul><ul><li>wine, finding wine and beer related </li></ul><ul><li>Examiner relied on third party </li></ul><ul><li>registrations and website evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Examiner criticized for relying on “Natural </li></ul><ul><li>Scope Of Expansion” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the expansion of trade doctrine is more appropriate to inter partes cases , and that in the context of an ex parte proceeding the analysis should be whether consumers are likely to believe that the services emanate from a single source, rather than whether the owner of the cited registration has or is likely to expand its particular business to include the goods of applicant. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In re Kysela Pere et Fils, Ltd. , Serial No. 77686637 (March 24, 2011) [precedential]. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Bona Fido Intent <ul><li>Beggin’ Strips opposed Waggin’ Strips for </li></ul><ul><li>pet treats </li></ul><ul><li>Fame of Beggin’ Strips not sufficiently proven, but marks are similar and goods are identical </li></ul><ul><li>Challenge to bona fide intent – unsuccessful </li></ul><ul><li>Only evidence of intent was mock-up packaging, but </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Company followed its general practice of not finalizing trademarks until allowed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Company currently mfgs. and sells the same products </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Societe Produits de Nestle S.A. v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc . , Opposition No. 91163853 (March 31, 2011) [not precedential]. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Related Goods? <ul><li>EZDOG (for animal toothbrushes) refused in view of EZEEDOG (incl: pet brushes) </li></ul><ul><li>Examiner relied on one Reg. containing both goods – insufficient to prove std. practice </li></ul><ul><li>Examiner submitted website pages from two national pet-supply chains – also insufficient </li></ul><ul><ul><li>products do not appear side-by-side on the same screen </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>products are sold under different trademarks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In re Benedent Corporation , Serial No. 77666733 (March 14, 2011) [not precedential]. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Google Adwords in Europe – caveat emptor <ul><li>In March 2010 the ECJ ruled that Google is not liable for trade mark infringement for allowing a rival to purchase Adwords using a competitor’s mark; however, is the purchaser liable? </li></ul><ul><li>New recommendation from AG: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The Advocate General considers that use of a rival trade mark as a Google AdWord constitutes trade mark infringement where the consumer is unable to determine whether or not the advert is for the brand they originally searched for . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>AG opinion on Google AdWords case - Interflora v Marks & Spencer </li></ul>