Intellectual Property Law Blog
Intellectual Property
Building a Patent Strategy that Actually Works for Your Business
If your business relies on bringing innovations to market that generate returns on investment, then a well-designed patent strategy is critical for realizing those returns. Patents help introduce new products to the market, secure investment, and establish your business’s competitive edge, all supporting and controlling the top and bottom lines. A thoughtful patent strategy simply helps turn innovation into long-term business value. However, achieving this long-term business value requires you to consider patents as part of the big picture of your business; business goals, market dynamics, and product roadmap are all important. Patents are not simply a check-the-box activity or even pure costs; they are investments in the future of your business. But how do you turn patents--powerful legal rights-- into business value? Start With the ‘Why’ Before jumping into the legal process, consider what patents could do for your business. Do you need to: Protect the core technology that drives your revenue? Create barriers to entry for competitors? Support a licensing model or open new revenue streams? Make your business more attractive to investors, acquirers or strategic partners? If the answer is yes to any of the above, a proactive patent strategy deserves a place in your broader business plan. Timing is Critical Patent law rewards those who act early in the innovation process. In fact, certain activities can result in the loss of patent rights. It is important to file for patent protection for an innovation before disclosing your invention publicly, whether through a sale, publication, presentation, or even a demonstration. But timing is a balancing act. Concepts that are too general or have not undergone some level of technical and market vetting may not be ready for patenting, but filing too late, after public disclosure can be catastrophic. Aim to file for patent protection when you can describe a clear use case and the market can identify key technical features important for that use case and market, ideally before you raise funds or launch publicly. Today, product development often requires engaging third parties early in the process. Two tactical steps can be used to bolster your strategy and provide some flexibility in timing: Use non-disclosure agreements with third parties you need to share your concept with to get help File provisional applications if you want to secure a filing date while continuing to refine the invention. Think Beyond One Patent Your strategy shouldn’t stop with one patent application or even one type of patent. Patents grant you the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention as claimed. But patents often are not broad blocking patents. Patents are often focused on incremental innovations, and patent law generally limits one patent per invention. Often, several inventions are built into a product, and robust protection would therefore require multiple patents. You may need to: Protect multiple components or processes within a single product. File in international markets where you plan to sell or manufacture the product. Keep an eye on adjacent technologies and file follow-on continuation patents as your product and market evolve. At least considering these options allows you to manage your patent strategy to your product roadmap, keep an eye on competitive threats, and help manage your patent more proactively. Patents are Investments, Not Costs Filing a patent isn’t just a line item on your legal budget — it’s an investment in your business’s future. Like any other asset, patents have the potential to generate returns, whether through increased valuation, market exclusivity, licensing opportunities, or strategic advantage. What makes patents more of an investment than just a budget line item? First, delaying or forgoing patents gives your competitors a free pass to use innovations you developed for their own gain. Without patents, competitors will capitalize on what your business introduced to the market, leaving little recourse for you after the fact. Those competitors can then file patents that could hamper your ability to sell your products. This has a direct impact on the topline and undermines R&D investment. Proactive patent protection avoids this altogether and serves as a competitive deterrent. Second, patents can help add revenue through licensing. However, licensing revenue is nearly impossible without legal rights protecting the products. Patents are an effective tool to support licensing or acquisition opportunities. Third, patents attract and retain capital. Investors always ask if the technology has protection. The larger the investments you seek, the more scrutiny will be placed on your patent strategy and how it relates to the technology supporting your innovations. Investors often look for competitive advantages, and patents provide that. Patents are assets and can help support business valuations that facilitate investment. Related to direct investments, patents can also act as collateral to secured transactions, facilitating investment or debt for financing other parts of the business. Without patents protecting your technology, you are forgoing an effective tool that drives investor confidence, which, in turn, drives investment in your business. A well-timed, well-aligned patent strategy doesn’t just protect what you’ve built, it helps justify and maximize the investments you’re already making in innovation. Treat patents as part of your business assets and budget for them accordingly. Encourage Internal Innovation An intentional patent strategy doesn’t just protect innovation, it helps fuel it. When your innovators know there’s a process in place to capture and evaluate their ideas, they’re more likely to share them. Encouraging your team to share and disclose ideas that may be patentable unlocks potentially patentable concepts that can support your business goals. A great way to maximize patent value is to create an invention disclosure system that harvests innovations within your organization while rewarding disclosure among your team. This can form the basis for an engaged team oriented towards protection innovation. An excellent supplement, patent seminars can help educate your staff about the patent process and what it takes to be an inventor under U.S. law. The Bottom Line A strong patent strategy isn’t about legal red tape; it's about creating leverage, supporting your growth, and building real, lasting value. Treating patents as an investment—not a cost—unlocks their full potential as a driver of innovation, funding and long-term success.
May 23, 2025
Intellectual Property
Trademark Registration Misconceptions: What Brand Owners Should Know
Many business owners view trademark registration as a smart investment—and they’re right. A federal registration gives you valuable legal advantages, including nationwide priority, a presumption of ownership, and stronger tools to protect your brand. But registering a trademark doesn’t give you absolute control. Whether you can prevent someone else from using a similar name or logo often depends on a few key questions: Who used the trademark first? If another party has prior rights, their use may be protected. Are they using it for the same or related goods/services? If you're operating in unrelated industries, another party’s use may not be infringing. Understanding these factors can help you protect your brand more effectively and avoid common trademark misconceptions. Trademark Protection Is Limited to Specific Goods and Services A trademark registration does not prevent others from using a similar or identical name, logo, or slogan in unrelated industries. Trademark law is designed to prevent consumer confusion—not to grant brand owners exclusive control over a word or phrase in all contexts. Your trademark rights are fundamentally tied to the goods and services that you sell under your brand name, logo, or other source indicator (i.e., trademark). You can register a trademark to use in connection with the sale of specific goods and services, not for everything. A perfect, real-world example of this can be found at the corner of Broadway and W 68th Street in New York City, where for several years, a LOWE’S® hardware store sat directly across from a LOEWS® movie theater. Despite the nearly identical pronunciation and similar spelling, both brands coexisted peacefully—and legally—because they operate in entirely different industries. Even though the names are similar, consumers are not likely to confuse a home improvement store with a movie theater or think that there is any shared ownership. The goods and services they offer are so different that consumers would not likely assume the two businesses are affiliated. (The Lowe’s eventually closed, but it was likely due to the lack of need for a big-box home improvement store in the heart of Manhattan rather than any trademark conflict.) If two businesses operate in distinct industries with different audiences and purposes, similar names can often legally coexist. “I Had It First”: Why First Use Still Matters When two companies are trading in related commercial spaces (i.e., selling similar goods or services to one another) under the same or similar trademarks, U.S. trademark law will generally favor the party that was using it first. That’s why, before applying for federal registration, your trademark attorney will typically conduct a search to identify existing registrations, pending applications for registration, and unregistered (or “common law”) uses of the mark. The term "common law" refers to trademark rights that arise through the actual use of the mark in commerce, even without formal registration. Suppose you're opening a bakery in North Carolina called “Maple & Bean.” A common law search reveals a small café in Vermont that has used that name locally for years but never registered it. If you and your trademark attorney agree that the reward outweighs the risk and there are no other conflicts, the USPTO may grant you a trademark registration. But even with that registration, the Vermont café would retain the right to use the name in its existing geographic area because it used it first. Your registration would, however, generally allow you to prevent others from using the same or a confusingly similar name for related goods or services going forward. However, it wouldn’t give you the right to stop someone from using “Bean & Maple” for products in unrelated industries, like glassblowing tools or HVAC systems. In short, trademark protection is both industry-specific and use-based. Registration strengthens your rights but doesn’t erase earlier uses—or give you absolute authority over all uses. Conclusion A federal trademark registration is a valuable asset, but its scope is not unlimited. Trademark rights are determined by both first use and the specific goods and services involved, making enforcement a fact-specific analysis. Understanding these nuances can help businesses manage their trademark rights effectively and avoid common misconceptions about registration.
April 2, 2025
Intellectual Property
Navigating the USPTO’s New Trademark Fees
It’s finally here. After months of warnings, announcements, and uneasiness about their application, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office implemented a number of trademark-related fee changes in January 2025. These fees changes, though, are more than just fee increases. Many of the new fee changes will require new filing practices and strategies to keep Trademark Office fees to a minimum, especially for filings by foreign applicants. Make Sure Your Application Has All Required Information In the past, it was possible to file an application without all of the required information. For example, an application could be filed without a signature and the signature submitted later. While this is still possible, applications filed without the required information will now be subject to an “insufficient information fee” of $100 per class. In some instances, these fees will be incurred at the time of filing (the electronic filing form is supposed to indicate what omissions will incur this fee), and in some instances, they will be incurred during the examination. For example, if an application is for the name of a living individual and is filed without written consent, or if the application is for a mark that is a foreign word and is filed without a translation, the application will incur an insufficient information fee during prosecution. Further, the insufficient information fee will be charged to new classes that are added to an application during prosecution if the application was filed with insufficient information. The Trademark Office does permit pre-examination amendments. The Trademark Office has advised, however, that using a pre-examination amendment to supplement an application with information omitted from the application at filing will wind up incurring the insufficient information fee during prosecution, eliminating a tool that was often used when an application needed to be filed in a hurry. These changes will put a premium on evaluating an application before it is filed to make sure that some effort is made to address all necessary requirements (e.g., a description of the mark, a transliteration, a color claim, applicant’s name, address, and domicile; etc.) Use the ID Manual Applications with listings of goods and services taken from the Trademark Office’s ID Manual (available here: https://idm-tmng.uspto.gov/id-master-list-public.html) are now charged a lower filing fee ($350) than those with listings not taken from the ID Manual ($550). Thus, using the ID Manual where possible is beneficial. In order to be entitled to the lower fee, each item in the listing for a particular class must be taken from the ID Manual. If one item in the listing is not from the ID Manual, then the higher fee will be charged. Further, the Trademark Office has explained that if any text is entered in what it calls the “free-form text” box in an application, the higher fee will be charged, even if some or all of the listings are taken from the ID Manual. Using descriptions from the ID Manual is not necessarily a guarantee that an applicant will be able to avoid the higher filing fee. Some descriptions in the ID Manual require applicants to fill in certain information. Guidance from the Trademark Office indicates that if a good faith attempt to fill in that information is made, the applicant will not be charged the additional fee during examination (use of a description such as “Printed educational materials in the field of specify subject matter” would not be considered a good faith attempt). In those situations, it will be up to the examining attorneys to determine if a good-faith attempt has been made. That will be a subjective determination, and it seems fair to expect the Trademark Office to take its familiar position that one examining attorney is not bound by the acts of another when determining what constitutes good faith. The Trademark Office has also indicated that if a party uses, in good faith, descriptions from the ID Manual and then is required to amend those descriptions, the additional fee will not be charged. Moreover, if an applicant files an application with a description from the ID Manual and then amends to a specification that is not in the ID Manual, the application will not incur the additional charge. One issue with the ID Manual is that it does not list every good or service (this can be a particular issue with new products, technology, etc.). One option for resolving this issue is to ask that a particular description be added to the ID Manual. This can be done by sending an email to tmidsuggest@uspto.gov with the following information: the name of the party submitting the proposed identification; an email address for correspondence relating to the proposed identification; and the proposed identification, which should be concise and no more than 25 words. Depending on how long it takes the Trademark Office to add descriptions to the ID Manual, that may not be a practical option (the Trademark Office’s website suggests that reviews will take 1 to 2 business days, and that accepted updates will be made in the next weekly update, but whether that time frame is accurate remains to be seen). Trademark Office guidance indicates that the insufficient information fee will not apply to issues with descriptions of goods or services. Keep Specifications Short One goal of the Trademark Office is to cut down on lengthy descriptions of goods and services. Thus, the Trademark Office has implemented a new fee of $200 per class where a specification entered as free-form text is in excess of 1,000 characters (the fee does not apply to specifications derived entirely from the ID Manual). The fee applies for each group of characters over 1,000, so a specification over 1,000 characters would incur a fee of $200 and a specification over 2,000 characters would incur a fee of $400. According to the Trademark Office, this fee will only be applied at the time an application is filed and will not be assessed during examination. Consider Filing Multiple Applications Instead of Multiclass Applications While a multiclass application may seem like it would be less expensive, under the Trademark Office’s new rules, it could actually be more expensive. For example, any insufficient information fees will be assessed against each class in an application. Further, if an application has two classes, and the description of goods or services for one is taken from the ID Manual and the other is entered as free-form text, both classes will be charged the additional fee due to the use of the free-form text feature. Additionally, if an application is filed using the free-form text option and a new class is added during examination, the fee for that class will be the higher fee, even if the description of the goods or services in that class is taken from the ID Manual. While it can be difficult to predict whether additional classes will have to be added during prosecution, filing a single class application rather than a multiclass application can reduce the likelihood that the higher fee will be incurred. File Through the Madrid Protocol, If You Can Applications filed through the Madrid Protocol are not subject to the new fees discussed above, making that an attractive means of filing in the United States. Use of the Madrid Protocol already had benefits not afforded to direct filings in the U.S.; applicants who file through the Madrid Protocol have six months in which to respond to any Office Actions that may be issued, rather than the three-month response period for applicants who file directly in the U.S., and this will continue to be the case. Applications filed directly in the U.S. will be subject to the Trademark Office’s new fees, even if those applications are filed based on foreign applications or registrations or claim priority to a foreign application or registration. Anyone considering filing directly in the U.S. based on a foreign application or registration would be well served to match the goods or services description in their home filing to those in the Trademark Office’s ID Manual, if possible, in order to avoid additional fees. If the application is based on a foreign application or registration that has already been filed, consider paring down lengthy specifications to avoid surcharges. A Note on Pending Applications Applications filed before January 18, 2025, will not be subject to any of the new fees if filed as TEAS Standard applications. Applications filed before January 18 as TEAS Plus applications (at the lower filing fee) may incur the insufficient information fee, if appropriate. Conclusion The Trademark Office’s fee changes have ushered in a brave new world of trademark practice in the United States. Only time will tell if these changes will accomplish the Trademark Office’s goals. At this point there are some means of avoiding the imposition of the Trademark Office’s new fees (particularly with some planning), and it is likely that the new fees will cause filers from outside of the U.S. to increase their use of the Madrid Protocol. In the end, though, the new fees and procedures reinforce the importance of working with skilled counsel to secure registration of a mark in as efficient a manner as possible.
February 17, 2025
Intellectual Property
Branding the Produce Aisle: Appealing to Consumer Tastes
Brands are taking over the produce aisle at the grocery store. They have already conquered the cereal aisle, the soda aisle, the chips aisle, and the cookie aisle (my favorite). While there have always been produce brands (Chiquita ® bananas or Dole pineapple), branded fruits and vegetables are proliferating. Newly branded fruits include the Elefante Green Gold pineapple, the Pink Elephant mango, and Cotton Candy grapes. The question is, why is there such a push to put stickers with a brand name on fruits and vegetables? Product Recognition and Differentiation From a legal point of view, product recognition and differentiation is the main reason to adopt a brand name. A brand name helps consumers identify a product, and helps that product stand out from other similar products. Which item are you more likely to remember—an apple or a Jazz apple? A banana or a Chiquita banana? It is possible for branding to be so successful that the brand name loses its ability to differentiate products. This is what happened to brands like aspirin and escalator, and it is something that brands like Xerox and Google fight against. Avoiding consumer confusion—or making sure that a brand name differentiates one party’s goods or services from another’s —is the whole point of trademark law. If consumers can distinguish one party’s brand from another’s, then there is no trademark infringement. If consumers think that the brands are related or associated with each other, then there is infringement. This is why the infringement analysis generally looks beyond the marks being used and the goods or services they are used on to other factors, such as price point, where the goods or services are being sold, and whether there was an intent to confuse consumers. Brand Loyalty Strong, dependable brands can encourage brand loyalty (repeat business). If you buy Cotton Candy grapes and love the way they taste, you are more likely to purchase them again with the expectation that you will be able to experience that great taste again. A negative experience, though, can cause a consumer to search for another brand of product. Brand loyalty can be a powerful driver of business. Think about it. How many times have you gone to the store and purchased something because you (or someone you know) used it before and it worked well? Sometimes brand loyalty is the result of an emotional connection to a brand. Perhaps you remember a brand from your childhood, or interacted with that brand when you were a child. Maybe you had a certain brand of drink with lunch in elementary school, or you remember your grandfather giving you a particular type of candy when you would visit. It could even be that you remember liking the advertising for a product when you were younger. This is one of the reasons why people often try to “revive” defunct brands, a practice that raises all sorts of questions about the ownership of the brand and the goodwill associated with it. Branded Items Seem More Exclusive The fashion industry has long since learned that branding can make a product seem more exclusive. One reason is that branded items can command a higher price. The store brand is almost always less expensive than the branded equivalent, whether in the grocery store or the department store. In some cases, the fruits are considered luxury items. This can be because they are genetically engineered, like Del Monte’s Pinkglow pineapple, which has white flesh, an edible core and low acidity, or the Cotton Candy grape, which is sweeter than a usual grape and tastes like cotton candy. In other cases, it is because small quantities are grown. To protect the names of these new fruits, growers seek trademark protection. After spending years to develop the fruits themselves (intentionally bred varieties of fruit trees and nut trees can be protected by a plant patent in the U.S., and genes, traits, methods, and plant parts can be protected by a U.S. utility patent), there is little reason not to protect the brand name, especially since that is what customers will ask for at the grocery store. Currently there are issued registrations or pending trademark applications for the following: COTTON CANDY, for grapes (Reg. No. 4109691) ELEFANTE GREEN GOLD, for pineapples (Reg. No. 7492189) PINKGLOW, for pineapples (Reg. No. 6330579) RUBYGLOW, for pineapples (Reg. No. 7507675) , for melons (Reg. No. 7154543) Branding is Everywhere It shouldn’t really be much of a surprise that brands are coming to the produce aisle. Branded items have been coming home with us from stores for a long time, and various factors drive the success and longevity of a brand. Without protection, though, a brand’s prospects for longevity are diminished and the brand is subject to appropriation or misuse by others. Trademark protection can help ensure the continued vitality of any brand, whether that brand appears on the most fashionable catwalks, in movie theaters, in a stadium, or in the grocery store.
January 8, 2025
Intellectual Property
OK Alert | Understanding the FTC’s New “Click-to-Cancel” Rule
Businesses that automatically charge their customers on a recurring basis may have to update their practices to comply with new consumer protection regulations. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has introduced a new “click-to-cancel” rule that places stricter requirements on negative option programs—business models that require customers to actively cancel or opt out to stop recurring charges. Common iterations of negative option programs include free trials that roll into paid subscriptions, recurring delivery services, automatic renewals, and similar continuous service agreements. While these programs offer convenience for consumers and predictable revenue for businesses, the new rule comes as a response to persistent consumer allegations of unfair and deceptive practices in some negative option programs. The FTC’s new “click-to-cancel” rule requires: Transparency: All program terms (billing frequency, total costs, how to cancel, etc.) must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. Businesses cannot bury this information in fine print or hard-to-find sections of their websites or agreements. Consent: Businesses must obtain explicit, informed consent from consumers before collecting billing information and should retain these consent records for at least three years. Ease of cancellation: Canceling must be as easy as signing up, with no hidden barriers or cumbersome processes. In short, this rule aims to ensure consumers know what they are signing up for. Businesses must now clearly disclose the program terms, secure consumer consent before billing, and make it straightforward to cancel. When to comply: Exact dates for compliance have not been announced yet. The rule will begin to take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Various provisions will also have staggered compliance dates, making the timeline more complex. Additionally, there are lawsuits challenging the rule that could lead to potential delays or pauses in implementation, adding further uncertainty. It may be advisable to consult with a lawyer on your specific compliance needs. Insights and best practices: Even if the rule is delayed or does not take effect, there are business advantages to proactive compliance. The practices defined in the “click-to-cancel” rule—clear terms, consent, and an easy cancellation process—address common consumer frustrations. Implementing transparent business practices can help you build consumer trust and goodwill, a quantifiable business asset. More information: The FTC announced the “click-to-cancel” rule in a press release on October 16, 2024. The full proposed text for the final “click-to-cancel” rule can be found here: Final Rule Concerning Recurring Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Programs, 16 CFR part 425. The following week, industry groups began challenging the FTC’s new “click-to-cancel” rule in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. On October 22, 2024, Electronic Security Association v. FTC (24-60542) was filed in the 5th Circuit and Michigan Press Association v. FTC (24-3912) was filed in the 6th Circuit. Offit Kurman will continue monitoring developments surrounding this new rule.
November 4, 2024
Intellectual Property
Pre-Emptively Filing a Trademark Application Over a Viral Catchphrase, Not Very Demure
On August 5, 2024, the life of TikTok content creator Jools Lebron changed after she posted a video that went viral. In the video, Lebron uses the phrase “very demure, very mindful, very cutesy.” That TikTok has since been viewed over 23 million times. Lebron has gone on to appear on Jimmy Kimmel Live and snagged endorsements with Zillow, Verizon and K18 hair. However, Lebron’s joy was dampened after she discovered that an individual named Jefferson A. Bates filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the wordmark “very demure .. very mindful ..” Bates’ application was filed on August 20, 2024, for advertising, marketing and promotional services related to all industries for the purpose of facilitating networking and socializing opportunities for business purposes. Since then, a few other trademark applications involving the words “demure” and “mindful” have popped up. But what even is the implication of these trademark applications to Lebron’s growing popularity and association with the catchphrase “very demure?” Can she continue to use the phrase in her videos or for the sale of merchandise? Under the Lanham Act, the standard test of trademark ownership is a priority of use in the marketplace. This means that ownership of a trademark is acquired by use in the ordinary course of trade, for example, by selling merchandise with the mark. On the other hand, trademark registration creates a legal presumption of ownership and provides notice of such ownership to the public. A trademark registration is obtained by submitting an application to the USPTO for the registration of the trademark. Such an application may be based upon actual use in federally regulated commerce. However, it is quite common to submit a trademark application as a way to reserve trademark rights prior to, but in anticipation of, actual use of the mark, as long as a declaration of bona fide intent-to-use in federally regulated commerce is submitted with the application, although an applicant under the intent-to-use category, will ultimately be required to submit a declaration of actual use before registration is granted. Bates’ trademark application alone does not reserve or guarantee his ownership of the “very demure .. very mindful ..” mark. Registering a mark involves a review by an examining attorney from the USPTO, and the process can take up to 18 months. During the review process, the examining attorney reviews the application to make sure it meets all legal requirements for registration. In fact, the USPTO may even reject the application for various legal reasons. For example, if the application conflicts with a mark that has already been registered or that is pending registration, the USPTO will issue an office action. An office action is a letter from the USPTO informing an applicant of the issues with a trademark application. An office action must be resolved before registration can be granted. After the review process, the trademark is published in the Trademark Official Gazette. At this point, any member of the public can oppose the registration of the trademark within 30 days of the publication. Alternatively, a letter of protest may be submitted with the USPTO. Even though filing a federal trademark application could provide Bates with some protection, trademark rights are automatically acquired through use of the mark in the marketplace. Thus, any protection that Bates may have received from his application may be subject to the rights of earlier users of the mark in the marketplace. However, can Lebron’s iconic use of the phrase in her TikTok videos be considered prior use in commerce? In decided cases, the Trademark Board has explained that mere advertising without rendering services under a mark could, in some circumstances, constitute use sufficient to prove priority. Every case is different, and the decision of the Trademark Board depends on the specifics at hand. Lebron can certainly continue to make videos using the viral catchphrase, but the clock may have started ticking on a race to the marketplace. Navigating the trademark application process or opposing the registration of a trademark can be confusing. If you are concerned about understanding how trademark rights can protect your business and brand name, we recommend consulting with an intellectual property attorney to discuss your options.
September 9, 2024
Intellectual Property
Protecting Your Most Important Asset: Why Trademark Registration Matters
What would you do with an asset with an almost infinite lifespan that symbolizes your company to your customers? And if that asset was your company’s most valuable asset? You’d protect it, of course. If you run a business of any type, you have such an asset: a trademark, often referred to as a brand name. The question is, are you protecting it? Trademarks reportedly account for about one-third of the stock market value of companies in the S&P 500. If your company is not protecting one of its most important assets, it is putting that asset at risk. The first step in protecting a trademark is registering it with the U.S. Trademark Office. This legal process is best handled by lawyers and involves some costs. In many cases, the cost to register in the U.S. is under $5,000, although it can exceed that amount. Renewal costs are generally under $2,500, with renewal needed every ten years. Given the nearly unlimited lifespan of a trademark, these costs are well worth it when considering the benefits of registration. Banks Will Take Trademarks as Collateral for Loans Some banks, such as IDB, will accept a security interest in a company’s trademarks as collateral for a loan. In today’s business landscape, where many businesses operate virtually and lack significant physical assets, having an asset that a bank can lend against can be crucial for a company’s growth. However, without a registered trademark, a bank may be unwilling to lend against it. At best, the bank may impose higher lending costs if it is willing to lend against unregistered trademarks. Parties Doing Business with a Company Want Assurance that the Company’s Brand is Protected Investors considering investing in a company will want to see that it has taken steps to protect its trademarks. As part of their due diligence efforts, they will ask for the details of trademark applications or registrations. If there are no applications or registrations, providing a transparent and honest explanation is necessary. Potential partners, such as licensees or franchisees, will also want to see that the company has taken steps to protect its trademarks if they invest money to do business with the company, whether by opening a franchised store or manufacturing and selling licensed goods; these partners will want assurance that the company has protected their mutual investment. Trademarks are Crucial to a Company’s Value As noted, a significant portion of a company’s value can be attributed to its brand. Companies with strong brands deliver better value to their shareholders.[1] The value of those assets is critical in business valuations, mergers, or acquisitions, providing leverage and opportunities for future sales and expansion. If you are considering selling your business and retiring, trademark registration can significantly increase its value. Given this potential boost, isn’t the cost of registration worth it? Trademark Registrations May Prevent Others from Registering the Same or a Similar Mark Trademark registrations are listed in the Federal Trademark Office’s online database, which is publicly available and searchable. Anyone searching for a similar trademark should find any registrations that your company owns. Upon discovering your company’s registration, third parties may drop or change their plans. Additionally, when the Trademark Office examines applications filed by others, it will refuse the registration of the same or similar marks for the same or related goods and services. However, if your mark is not registered, the Trademark Office will not block the registration of the same or a similar mark. The Trademark Office only reviews its records during the examination process. It does not search the marketplace, which can result in a competitor registering a similar mark. While it is possible to challenge such a registration, doing so can be costly in terms of time and money. It is far better to prevent this situation by ensuring your mark is registered in the first place. While the Trademark Office will block potentially infringing third-party applications, it does not take action to stop third parties from infringing your company’s trademark. The responsibility to enforce trademark rights falls on the trademark owner. Further, once your company’s mark is registered, you gain nationwide rights that can be enforced against subsequent users. Without a registration, your rights are limited to the geographic area in which your company operates. One other thing. Forming a company with the state is not the same as registering a trademark. The state does not check to see if your name will infringe on anyone else’s name when you form a company. Having a Trademark Registration Makes Enforcement Easier on Online Platforms If someone uses your mark without authorization on social media or an online shopping platform, having a trademark registration makes it easier to enforce your company’s rights and have the online platform take action to stop the infringement. A registration allows the platform to verify your rights, which they cannot do if your company has no trademark registration. Additionally, a trademark registration grants your company access to online protection mechanisms, such as Amazon’s Brand Registry. In cybersquatting cases, which still occur, having a trademark registration simplifies proving your case and recovering the domain name in question. However, a trademark registration does not automatically entitle your company to the corresponding domain name. Legal Benefits of Registration Having a trademark registration provides certain legal advantages. For example, lawsuits for infringement of federal trademark registrations can be filed in federal court. In such cases, registration entitles the trademark owner to a legal presumption of ownership, the right to use the mark, and the mark’s validity (validity presumption applies only to registrations on the Principal Register). These presumptions can streamline court proceedings and reduce legal expenses. Without registration, your company must prove ownership, usage rights, and protection eligibility in every enforcement action, resulting in increased costs. Additionally, marks registered on the Principal Register can achieve incontestable status after five years of registration, provided an appropriate filing is made with the Trademark Office. Incontestable status means the registration can only be challenged on specific, limited grounds. Furthermore, registered marks can use the ® symbol to indicate they are registered. This can prevent third parties from adopting similar marks and, more importantly, prevent infringers from arguing in a lawsuit that your company waived its right to damages by not using the ® symbol. Using the ® symbol helps ensure you do not inadvertently leave money on the table. Foreign Trademark Registrations A U.S. trademark registration does not afford trademark protection outside the U.S.; trademark rights must be protected country by country. However, a U.S. trademark registration can serve as the basis for trademark filings abroad and enable your company to benefit from certain international treaties that may reduce the cost of filing in other countries. Recording Registrations with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) A trademark registration on the Principal Register can be recorded with Customs and Border Protection (CBP). However, there is a fee for this service. Recording your registration with CBP allows them to monitor goods coming into the country. If CBP identifies goods with an infringing or counterfeit mark, they will stop their importation and seize the items. While CBP may request verification that the goods are not legitimate, once that confirmation is provided, CBP will manage the seizure process. Conclusion Trademark registration offers several cost-saving benefits. Legal presumptions and the status of incontestable registrations can reduce court costs. Additionally, registered marks make it easier to enforce rights online. A U.S. trademark registration can also reduce the costs of filing for registrations in other countries and can be recorded with CBP to assist in enforcing your rights. Beyond these cost-reducing benefits, trademarks are high-value assets that can serve as collateral for loans and that investors and business partners will want to see. Therefore, trademarks should be protected with the same diligence as any other asset. Failing to protect this asset can result in its loss and a subsequent loss in value for the company — an outcome no company would or should permit. [1] See The top 100 most valuable global brands 2013 (marketingweek.com).
July 24, 2024
Intellectual Property
AI-Generated Works Dilemma: Balancing AI Terms of Service With Contractual Obligations
Like any emerging technology, AI is entangled with legal issues. These legal issues may not make for compelling entertainment, but they are important in shaping the use and potential of AI. The Legal Intelligencer Pop culture generally depicts artificial intelligence (AI) in extremes, from benevolent helpers like Rosie the Robot from “The Jetsons” to malevolent entities bent on humanity’s destruction, like HAL 9000 from 2001 or SkyNet from “The Terminator” movies. While these depictions make for captivating entertainment, they are far from the reality of today’s AI. Like any emerging technology, AI is entangled with legal issues. These legal issues may not make for compelling entertainment, but they are important in shaping the use and potential of AI. While no member of the Jetson household had to accept terms of service before instructing Rosie the Robot, contracts—terms of service—governing the use of AI, such as Dall-E and Midjourney, carry significant implications that users and their counsel should understand. This is especially true when creators utilize AI to generate works and designs for clients. For example, consider the scenario where a furniture store commissions a design firm to create a unique carpeting design that can be used to manufacture carpets to be sold at the store. Looking to expedite the creation of the design, the designer inputs a prompt to their chosen AI tool, which promptly generates a design. Let’s use this scenario as the starting point to explore some pertinent questions. Ownership of AI-Generated Designs Under U.S. copyright law, ownership of designs typically resides with the creator unless they assign their rights to their client in writing (copyright assignments must be in writing; see 17 U.S.C. Section 204). In this case, though, there is another layer. Who owns the work created by the AI? To answer that question, one must turn to the AI’s terms of service. Midjourney’s terms of service state that “User owns all assets they create with the services to the fullest extent possible under applicable law.” (see “Terms of Service,” visited March 9, 2024). Similarly, Dall-E’s terms of service state that “as between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you retain your ownership rights in Input and own the output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to output” (see “Terms of Use,” visited March 9, 2024). While such terms may resolve the issue in many cases, they fall short here because the assignment may not have much value. The Copyright Office has determined that copyright in AI-generated work can only be registered if there is a sufficient level of human involvement, although the specific level of involvement remains unclear [see Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. CV 22-1564 (BAH) (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023)]. While this ruling may not directly affect the question of ownership, it significantly impacts the enforceability of rights in AI-generated works. AI-Generated Designs Are Not Exclusive When clients hire a designer to create a carpeting design, they often seek an exclusive, original design distinct from designs used by others. In the traditional situation without AI involvement, the contract between the designer and the client typically states that the design will be exclusive to the client, even if the client does not own the copyright in the design. While Midjourney and Dall-E’s terms of service state that the user owns all rights in the AI-generated work, they also contain language giving the AI the right to use that output. Thus, Midjourney’s terms of service state that: by using the services, You grant to Midjourney, its successors, and assigns a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute text and image prompts You input into the services, as well as any assets produced by You through the service. This license survives termination of this agreement by any party, for any reason. Dall-E’s terms of service are slightly less explicit, stating, “We may use content to provide, maintain, develop, and improve our services, comply with applicable law, enforce our terms and policies, and keep our services safe.” The meaning of both provisions is the same: any work created by the AI will be incorporated back into the system and utilized to generate new works in response to new user prompts. While Midjourney offers a potential solution, if users pay a subscription fee, this option only requires Midjourney to use its best efforts to refrain from publishing any output. This scenario raises multiple questions for our carpet designer. If the contract requires exclusivity for the design, AI utilization would seemingly breach this provision. Dall-E’s terms of service acknowledge the potential dissemination of designs to others, noting that “due to the nature of our services and artificial intelligence generally, output may not be unique and other users may receive similar output from our services.” This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for designers utilizing AI to assure clients of design exclusivity. Further, the Copyright Office’s stance on copyright in AI-generated works means that neither the designer nor the client could sue a third party for infringement if that third party used a design incorporating elements of the AI-generated design. A lawsuit for copyright infringement cannot be brought without a copyright registration, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019). However, as discussed above, the Copyright Office generally does not issue registrations for AI-generated works. What If the AI-Generated Design Infringes on Someone Else’s Work? A standard agreement between a designer and their client typically includes a warranty and representation that the design will be original and noninfringing. However, can a designer who uses AI to create a design genuinely make such a representation? At best, it appears challenging to assert a complete absence of infringement. More than contractual breaches are at stake. The designer’s reputation could be on the line, too, if it becomes known that AI was used to create a design that unintentionally infringed upon another’s work. Taking this a step further, multiple lawsuits are pending alleging copyright infringement because the AI involved in these cases was trained using copyrighted materials. Assuming these allegations are true, it is possible that in response to a designer’s prompt, an AI could generate a work incorporating elements of someone else’s copyrighted material or the entirety of someone else’s material, potentially leading to copyright infringement liability for the designer. The designer could also be liable to those involved in manufacturing the carpet for the store and possible wholesale partners, making the consequences for the designer that much worse. While no such cases have yet emerged in the United States, multiple AI companies have offered to indemnify users against claims of copyright infringement (see “OpenAI offers to indemnify ChatGPT customers for copyright infringement,” visited March 9, 2024). However, the value of such indemnification offers may be limited, especially if the AI companies are flooded with requests and cannot afford to indemnify all users. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether such indemnification from the AI companies would extend to the designer’s client in cases of resale. Although their interests are likely aligned, clients may prefer assurance that their interests will be actively defended. Additionally, the indemnification offered by the AI companies may not cover claims for breach of contract by the client against the designer, leaving the designer potentially liable to their client. Conclusion If Rosie the Robot had to grapple with these contract issues, completing her assigned tasks might have become more challenging (perhaps imposing legal requirements on SkyNet could have prevented its homicidal tendencies). The reality is that we must consider these legal provisions, which can carry significant consequences for AI users, most of whom likely overlook them. One solution is to avoid using AI altogether when creating designs, but this seems increasingly unrealistic with each passing day. Rather, contractual language may have to be updated to account for AI and how it functions. However, this adaptation will require time, and likely involve legal disputes. In the meantime, it’s crucial for all parties, including designers, to recognize the risks associated with using AI. Reprinted with permission from the April 16, 2024, edition of The Legal Intelligencer © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.
May 1, 2024
Intellectual Property
Elevating Your Brand: Insights from Bridgerton's Licensing Success
When Bridgerton returns, its influence won’t be confined to the small screen. Now, thanks to a licensing arrangement with Ruggables, you can bring the elegance of Bridgerton into your home. Known for their diverse collaborations with iconic brands like Star Wars, Architectural Digest, Keith Haring, and Jonathan Adler, Ruggables has extended the Bridgerton aesthetic to your home. Since February, Bridgerton rugs have adorned homes, adding a touch of sophistication reminiscent of the beloved period drama. And the collaboration doesn’t stop there – a partnership with Bath & Body Works brought Bridgerton-inspired scents into personal care this past March. Given Bridgerton’s immense popularity, its expansion beyond the small screen should come as no surprise. In fact, it is following a path well-worn by other entertainment giants: licensing. Licensing can be a powerful tool for expanding a brand’s footprint, yet it carries significant risks. While a well-executed licensing program, such as the one that accompanied the release of last summer’s Barbie release, can create the illusion of ubiquity and fuel a seemingly insatiable demand for branded merchandise, it’s essential to recognize that success in licensing is not easily achieved. Behind every triumph lies diligent effort and meticulous planning. The initial step involves figuring out which products seamlessly complement the brand. Bridgerton’s meticulous attention to detail and well-appointed sets, such as Danbury House or Aubrey Hall, coupled with the buzz surrounding the show’s aesthetic, make a collaboration with Ruggable an ideal choice. This partnership effortlessly extends the visual appeal of the show into the homes of its audience. Next up is the crucial step of ensuring that the brand to be licensed is protected, which involves filing trademark applications to protect the mark associated with the goods slated for licensing. Notably, Netflix owns a U.S. trademark registration for BRIDGERTON covering entertainment services. It has a pending application covering an array of goods and services (e.g., cosmetics, electronic devices, jewelry, handbags, home linens, dishware, clothing, toys, and food). However, it is worth noting that rugs are notably absent from this coverage. One of the most critical parts of licensing is finding a partner you can trust (such as Ruggable, which boasts licensing arrangements with other major brands, likely facilitating its collaboration with Bridgerton). Why? Through licensing, you are giving up some control over your brand. It’s imperative to have confidence that your partner will exercise the same care about your brand as you do and that they will work hard to make the license successful. Plus, ensuring they fulfill their obligations under the license, such as making timely payments and adhering to ethical standards like avoiding child labor, is crucial. Remember, your licensing partners are a reflection of your brand; any missteps on their part could tarnish your reputation, especially in the eyes of discerning observers like Lady Whisteldown. Of course, no one has a crystal ball, and unforeseen events can create issues. That is precisely why a well-drafted license agreement is essential to any licensing effort. This agreement should comprehensively outline all the pertinent business terms, including territory, duration, channels of trade, licensed products, royalty rates, and more. Additionally, it should have mechanisms for termination, should such action become necessary. If, for some reason, the license arrangement does not work out, it is the terms of the license agreement that will control the parties’ relationship moving forward. From a brand owner’s point of view, the quality control provisions within a license agreement hold paramount importance. There are several compelling reasons for this. Firstly, the brand owner’s primary objective is to uphold the brand’s reputation by ensuring that licensed products maintain high-quality standards and reflect the brand’s core values. Consequently, license agreements often grant brand owners the authority to approve prototypes and production items. It's imperative for brand owners to promptly provide approvals to avoid disrupting marketing plans. Secondly, failure to exercise quality control could result in what is known as “naked licensing,” which can result in the potential forfeiture of their trademark rights. While a good quality control provision in the license agreement serves as a preventative measure to a naked license situation, the brand owner’s active monitoring of product quality is essential. After all, consumers seeing a brand on a product will assume that the product meets certain standards of quality. And as you know, dear reader, Queen Charlotte can be exacting. This year’s diamond of the licensing season could well be the rug collaboration. If you are seeking to elevate your brand to new heights of success in the upcoming season, I’m here to provide professional guidance in crafting and executing a dynamic licensing program. Let’s work together to ensure your brand shines brighter than ever before in the competitive world of licensing.
April 23, 2024
Intellectual Property
Navigating Trademark Complexities: Meta’s Brazilian Setback
Meta Platforms Inc., the behemoth that owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads and others, recently faced a court in Brazil that prohibited the company from using the Meta trademark in the country. A digital transformation consultancy has held a registered trademark for Meta in Brazil since 1990, resulting in Meta Platforms being blocked from using the trademark. The refusal in Brazil demonstrates the challenges inherent in global branding. For one thing, searching for the availability of trademarks worldwide is prohibitively expensive for many businesses. Of course, Meta is a deep-pocketed company that likely researched the availability of this trademark far and wide before announcing their decision to change their name from Facebook in October 2021. However, for reasons unknown, the company went forward with the rebrand, even though this obstacle existed in one of the largest countries in the world. Of course, we do not know what Meta’s team of lawyers advised, but regardless, the company finds itself in an unfortunate situation, unable to use META in Brazil. This scenario is not limited to international borders; it can also occur within the United States. A trademark registration, which can be obtained if a business uses a trademark in more than one state, provides nationwide rights and protections against later users. But what happens when one company adopts a brand that is already used in a part of the United States? The junior user may need to select one trademark to use in one part of the country and a different one for the rest of the country. Such is the case with the ice cream brand Dreyer’s, which people in the eastern half of the U.S. know as Edy’s. When Dreyer’s came along, there was already a well-known brand of ice cream sold in supermarkets called Breyers. Photo courtesy of Laura Winston Photo courtesy of Laura Winston Another instance is Hellmann’s mayonnaise, known as Best Foods mayonnaise west of the Rocky Mountains. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may grant what is known as a “concurrent use registration,” which carves out the territories in which each party has the rights derived from mark registration. This is an exception that challenges the principle that a trademark registration provides nationwide rights. Whether your business is going global or you are considering expanding within the United States, it is best to consult with an attorney who can advise you about the best ways to protect and expand your trademark rights. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.
April 4, 2024
Intellectual Property
Lights, Camera, Trademark: The Unsung Heroes of the Oscars
Oscar night is the most glamorous night in Hollywood. The red carpet. The gold statuettes. The gowns. The tuxedos. The stars. The trademarks. That’s right, the trademarks. They are essential to the movie industry, and when we celebrate the best in the movies, we should also celebrate the unforgettable trademarks that go along with the motion picture industry. The equipment used to make and show movies are all emblazoned with trademarks. We’ve all seen PANAFLEX or PANAVISION cameras in behind-the-scenes documentaries. Most of us have seen movies in IMAX, and we have heard movies in DOLBY SURROUND SOUND, DOLBY ATMOS, or DTS. Or maybe we’ve even seen a movie in CINEMASCOPE (Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, for example). We’ve probably watched movies with special effects from ILM, DIGITAL DOMAIN, and WETA. Almost all of us have seen a movie in an AMC or REGAL CINEMAS theater, or maybe we have seen where the stars have signed their names and left their handprints outside of GRAUMAN’S CHINESE THEATER in Los Angeles. That theater is so well-known that the look of the building is registered as a trademark. The studio and production company names that appear at the beginning of films are great examples of trademarks, indicating the source of the movie that viewers are watching. PARAMOUNT, PIXAR, WARNER BROTHERS, RKO, UNIVERSAL, SONY, COLUMBIA PICTURES, A24, ORION PICTURES, FOCUS FEATURES, BAD ROBOT, and AMBLIN are all trademarks. So are the roaring lion that introduces MGM films, the Twentieth Century Fox Fanfare, and Netflix’s “Tudum” sound. The water tower on the Warner Brothers lot is also a trademark. That brings us to the movies themselves. The U.S. Trademark Office will not register the title of a single work (this is true for books, too); rather, it will only register the title of a series (meaning two or more movies). While none of this year’s Best Picture nominees are part of a series, plenty of movie series titles are registered trademarks: BACK TO THE FUTURE, JURASSIC PARK, STAR WARS, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, DUNE, THE GODFATHER, BARBERSHOP, MADEA, and GODZILLA to name a few. Even some characters and props are the subjects of trademark registrations. Mickey Mouse, for one, is a registered trademark (trademark protection for characters is not always available). There are trademark registrations for multiple lightsaber hilts, as well as the X-Wing Fighter. In Europe, the owner of James Bond has a number of trademark registrations, including one for the well-known gun barrel sequence, and one for one the famous spy’s iconic poses. At least some movie brands have received legal advice and sought trademark protection. Thus, there are registrations for STAY PUFT (for marshmallows), STARK INDUSTRIES (for clothing), THE DAILY PLANET (also for clothing), WILLY WONKA (for candy), BUBBA GUMP (for restaurants), THE MIGHTY DUCKS (for hockey). Of course, we should not forget that Mattel has a trademark registration for the shade of pink associated with BARBIE. And yes, the golden statuette itself is a trademark, so all those who took one home took home a trademark. It’s the most glamorous night in Hollywood, and the trademarks have the best seats.
March 7, 2024
Intellectual Property
Trademark Use in the U.S.
Demystifying What Constitutes an Acceptable Specimen of Use Evidence of use is, in most circumstances, essential to securing and maintaining a U.S. trademark registration. Subject to certain limited exceptions involving foreign trademarks, the U.S. Trademark Office will not issue a U.S. trademark registration without appropriate proof of use. Similarly, to maintain a U.S. trademark registration, a registrant must submit adequate proof of use to the Trademark Office. While this sounds straightforward, in practice, it can sometimes be very difficult to find evidence of use that the Trademark Office will accept. According to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, § 904, specimens “are required because they show the manner in which the mark is seen by the public.” Acceptable specimens can be labels and tags affixed to goods or the containers for goods (but not mockups), stampings on products, commercial packaging, screenshots from a computer program or a frame of a movie or video, a website from which software can be downloaded, point of sale displays, catalogs with ordering information, websites from which products can be ordered, and manuals. TMEP §§ 904.03 (a) through 904.03 (k). On the other hand, printer’s proofs, mockups, renderings, and advertising materials are generally not acceptable as evidence of use. TMEP §§ 904.03 (a) through 904.03 (k). Once evidence of use is submitted, the Trademark Office will examine it carefully. If it is not accepted, an Office Action will be issued, after which one will have the ability to submit a substitute specimen that was in use as of the pertinent date (usually the date on which the original specimen was submitted). TMEP § 904.05. Obtaining an acceptable specimen is often one of the most difficult parts of preparing a trademark application or a maintenance filing. This is in part because the Trademark Office examines them so carefully but also partly because there is a desire to avoid the expense of repeated filings with the Trademark Office. Indeed, failure to submit an acceptable specimen can lead to the refusal of an application, as demonstrated by a recent case. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. sought to register EXPERIMENTAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES as a trademark for use in connection with dietary and nutritional supplements. As evidence of use, it submitted an original specimen and a substitute specimen. The original specimen was five pages long, consisting of a screen capture of a web page showing five different products. The proposed mark did not appear on the first page, but it did appear on close-ups of two supplement bottles that were part of the specimen. The close-ups showed the proposed mark on the lower back portion of the label, on one line of a four-line group. All four lines were the same color, appeared in the same font size and style, and had the same justification. The proposed mark appeared at the end of the following sentence: “Developed and exclusively manufactured by Experimental And Applied Sciences”; because of its positioning, the proposed mark was on the second line. The next line had the applicant’s address, and the following line had the applicant’s phone number and website address. The Examining Attorney refused registration of the mark, taking the position that the evidence of use showed the proposed mark being used as a trade name, not as a trademark (the submitted evidence did not show the proposed mark anywhere else on the bottle). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed on appeal, agreeing with the Examining Attorney that the “applicant would be hard-put to present the term in a less prominent manner.” (emphasis in original). The TTAB explained that the proposed mark appeared as part of a visual unit and that, as a result, the impression was that the proposed mark should be read in the context of the lines around it. Therefore, registration was refused. An acceptable specimen would have led to a different result. While the Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals case was in the context of seeking registration of a mark, it applies with equal force to maintenance filings—an improper specimen can lead to the cancellation of a registration mark. Thus, in either context, it is important to work with experienced counsel to make sure that a mark is being used in a manner that demonstrates trademark use and that will be accepted by the Trademark Office. If there is any doubt about whether the Trademark Office will accept use, please contact me (preferably well in advance of any deadlines).
February 29, 2024
Intellectual Property
Upcycling, Customization, and Trademark Infringement
With its potential environmental and sustainability benefits, upcycling is a popular trend. Likewise, product customization, allowing consumers to express their own style, is also popular. As illustrated by two cases involving watches, both can give rise to claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. BecekerTime, L.L.C. BeckerTime is a seller of decades-old preowned watches containing Rolex parts. BeckerTime identifies such watches as “Genuine Rolex,” but they include both Rolex and non-Rolex parts. Before taking action, Rolex purchased two watches from BeckerTime. BeckerTime added diamonds as hour markers to the refinished watch dials by drilling holes in the dials and inserting aftermarket diamonds or other stones and settings in the holes. As part of the refurbishment process, BeckerTime strips the dial down to bare metal, and once the refurbishment is complete, it reapplies Rolex’s trademarks. When selling the modified watches, BeckerTime lists a retail price with a comparison price labeled as “New MSRP (if all factory)”— even though Rolex does not and has never sold a similar watch. Additionally, BeckerTime adds various non-Rolex parts (such as bezels with added diamonds, bands, or straps). BeckerTime issues an “Authenticity Guarantee” for each watch it sells and has held itself out as a “Certified PreOwned Watch Dealer” with a “Rolex Certified Master Watchmaker” even though Rolex has not certified BeckerTime or its watchmaker. Moreover, the parts added by BeckerTime are integral to the function of the watches and do not bear any markings indicating that BeckerTime is the source of the watches. To be sure, BeckerTime did indicate on its website that the replacement parts were not genuine Rolex parts, that the alterations it makes would void any Rolex warranty, and that BeckerTime is not affiliated with Rolex. That was not enough to stave off legal action. Rolex sued BeckerTime for trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement in September 2020. After a bench trial, the court found that BeckerTime infringed Rolex’s trademark by counterfeiting Rolex watches and issued an injunction precluding BeckerTime from using Rolex’s trademark in specific ways. Both parties appealed, and the court of appeals largely upheld the injunction. The court of appeals explained that “BeckerTime does more than recondition or repair vintage Rolex watches.” According to the court of appeals, BeckerTime sold watches that were materially different from those sold by Rolex; the watches could not be called genuine Rolex watches. The court of appeals also pointed out that customers were confused as to whether the watches were entirely genuine Rolex and that BeckerTime had received complaints about the quality of the watches. As a result, the court of appeals affirmed the injunction, although it did instruct the lower court to clarify one point. Hamilton Intern. Ltd. v. Vortic LLC Like the BeckerTime case, this case also involved watches. The outcome was very different. Robert Thomas Custer founded Vortic and endeavored to make a watch that would be entirely made in America. After learning that no active company in the U.S. made watch movements, Vortic began salvaging and restoring parts from antique American-made pocket watches manufactured in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The parts, which included antique parts from watches bearing Hamilton’s trademark, were then encased in new wristwatches. One of the watches Vortic made was named “The Lancaster,” after the city where the Hamilton Watch Company was originally based. The Lancaster features restored antique pocket watch movements and front dials made by Hamilton. The front dial bears the HAMILTON trademark. The watch strap, case, and various internal parts were either manufactured by Vortic or came from modern U.S. sources. The back of the watch has a glass cover through which the watch parts, some of which bear the HAMILTON trademark, can be seen. The cover is surrounded by a metal ring with Vortic’s name and serial number for the watch, as well as the watch’s name. Buyers received the watch in a wooden box with Vortic’s name and a booklet that displayed the Vortic logo and explained its manufacture and restoration process. The box also included an authentication card with Vortic’s name and serial number, which was signed by the watchmaker. Vortic’s advertisements emphasized the antique and authentic nature of the watch’s parts. In July 2017, Hamilton sued for trademark infringement and counterfeiting. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Vortic, finding that there was no likelihood of customer confusion. Hamilton appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The court of appeals pointed out that Vortic took genuine parts from Hamilton watches, refurbished and repaired them, and modified them into a wristwatch and that consumers would view the watch as an antique pocket watch modified into a wristwatch rather than as an entirely new product. Further, the court of appeals explained that Vortic took many steps to disclose that it was not affiliated with Hamilton and that its watch used refurbished original parts. This could be seen in advertisements, the marks on the watch itself, and the fact that the watches themselves are presented to consumers as restored antique pocket watch parts modified into a wristwatch. The court of appeals contrasted this with other cases (including cases brought by Rolex) where there was no disclosure of the changes made to the watch and pointed out that there was no evidence of consumer confusion in the record. So, What Is Permitted? Anyone seeking to reuse a previously manufactured product or parts from a previously manufactured product should make sure to disclose to consumers exactly what has been done. Further, it is important to make clear that there is no affiliation between the upcycler/customizer and the original manufacturer. These seem to be the key differences between the Rolex decision and the Vortic decision. However, strict compliance with those requirements does not mean that reusing a previously manufactured product cannot give rise to a claim for trademark infringement. One thing that does seem settled is that customization of a product purchased by a consumer is permitted so long as the customized product is intended for the consumer’s own use and not for resale (in the BeckerTime case, it appears that BeckerTime was customizing watches for sale, rather than in response to consumer requests). If you are contemplating reusing someone else’s products or are concerned that a third party reusing your products will result in consumer confusion, please feel free to contact me.
February 14, 2024
Intellectual Property
Laughing in the Face of Copyright: The Unsettling Case of AI-Generated Comedy and Digital Immortality
George Carlin had quite the career. His seven dirty words routine was the centerpiece of litigation about the government’s power to censor indecent material on the airwaves that went up to the Supreme Court. He won awards for his comedy specials and albums (full disclosure: Jammin’ in New York is a personal favorite). He appeared in movies like The Prince of Tides, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Cars (where he voiced Fillmore), and was the conductor on Shining Time Station. Carlin passed away in 2008, and he is now at the center of a new lawsuit raising questions about whether AI should be used to “resurrect” deceased artists, who controls the legacy of deceased artists, and who can profit from their “resurrection.” On January 9, 2024, Dudesy LLC (“Dudesy”) released an hour-long video entitled “George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead (2024). The introductory voiceover explained that Dudesy, using some type of AI, fed George Carlin’s standup routines into the training database for the AI; the AI was then used to create the video. The introductory voice further stated, “I listened to all of George Carlin’s material and did my best to imitate his voice, cadence, and attitude, as well as the subject matter I think would have interested him today.” The video quickly made the rounds on social media. By January 25, Carlin’s estate, which had nothing to do with the video, filed suit against Dudesy and the individuals associated with the making of the video. The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Los Angeles, asserts three claims: violation of the common law right of publicity, violation of the statutory right of publicity, and copyright infringement. The first two claims are based on the unauthorized use of Carlin’s name, voice, and likeness in the video. The third claim is based on the copying allegedly occurring when Carlin’s standup routines were fed into the AI to create the video. The lawsuit claims that Dudesy saw the video as a profit center, not just a way to make people laugh. Dudesy promoted the video with social media posts providing links to its online store and Patreon page from which subscribers can purchase monthly subscriptions. And a YouTube channel associated with Dudesy that posted videos relating to the hour-long special with the same hyperlinks and advertisements. Further, in anticipation of a likely claim that the video was a “fair use,” the lawsuit alleges that the video “has no comedic or creative value absent its self-proclaimed connection with George Carlin. It does not, for example, satirize Carlin as a performer or offer an independent critique of society.” In the wake of the filing of the lawsuit, Dudesy now claims that the video was not written by AI but instead by Chad Kultgen. Mr. Kultgen, together with Will Sasso, hosts the Dudesy podcast—a podcast that was used to promote the video. If it is true that a human wrote the script for the video, that might negate the copyright infringement claim insofar as it relates to the use of AI, but it still leaves Dudesy facing the California right of publicity claims for their efforts to “resurrect” George Carlin. The question of who, if anyone, has the right to “resurrect” a performer or personality depends on state law; slightly less than half of the states recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. The case neatly crystallizes the issues surrounding AI as it impacts the legacies of performers and other celebrities and touches on similar issues that were at the core of last year’s Hollywood strikes. Thirty years after it came out, the movie Jurassic Park remains prescient. And Dr. Malcom’s indictment of John Hammond and InGen applies with equal force to the burgeoning use of AI: “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” If you need to talk with someone about whether or not you should, contact me or one of my intellectual property colleagues at Offit Kurman.
February 7, 2024
Intellectual Property
Recipes, Trademarks and Décor
Feasting on the Lessons of Il Mulino’s Intellectual Property Battle When thinking about restaurants, most people think of a savory meal in a pleasant setting. I think about that, too, but more often than not, my thoughts turn to a restaurant’s intellectual property and what can be protected (a danger of the trade, I suppose). Restaurant names can be protected as trademarks, recipes as trade secrets, and the plating of an entrée may be protected by a design patent. A recent case involving the well-known Italian restaurant Il Mulino touches on many of these aspects of protection. Still, perhaps most interestingly, that case found that the look of the restaurant’s interior, its trade dress, is protectable. According to the court, this case is the latest in a long-running dispute over intellectual property relating to the Il Mulino restaurants. Defendants had been involved in opening and operating Il Mulino restaurants, an enterprise that involved various entities; one entity owned the intellectual property and licensed it to various locations. In 2020, some of the Il Mulino entities filed for bankruptcy. As a result of the bankruptcy, plaintiffs acquired those entities, including the entity that owned the intellectual property. The defendants opened Il Mulino Tribeca in 2018, and the location closed in September 2023. On September 15, 2023, the defendants opened a new Italian restaurant in the same space as Il Mulino Tribeca. The lawsuit was filed in November, with plaintiffs seeking to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from using proprietary recipes, certain restaurant names, the trade dress of Il Mulino Tribeca, a former Il Mulino location, and certain property from Il Mulino Tribeca in their new restaurant. Each claim warrants review, particularly the trade dress claim. The Trade Dress of Il Mulino Tribeca The court explained that the Plaintiffs defined the trade dress of Il Mulino Tribeca as consisting of the following elements: an art collection of black and white photographs arranged in a perfectly symmetrical design, covering almost one entire interior wall of the restaurant; custom artwork commissioned for Il Mulino Tribeca’s back wall that evokes the restaurant’s Tribeca home by referring to its location “Below Canal St[reet]”; (3) white-washed brick and high ceilings painted matte black; and unique, hand-blown glass pendants hanging near the entrance of the restaurant. All of the above appear in the Defendants’ new restaurant. The court found that the above definition was sufficiently precise and that the claimed trade dress was not functional. According to the court, “Il Mulino Tribeca’s décor plainly does not affect a customer’s “use or purpose” of the restaurant nor the cost or quality thereof. A customer could just as easily enjoy veal parmigiana in the absence of glass pendants or white-washed brick.” The court also pointed out that the trade dress analysis focuses on the trade dress as a whole, not particular elements that may be used by competitors. Finding that the trade dress was also inherently distinctive since it did not convey any information about the restaurant’s services or cuisine, the court concluded that the claimed trade dress was entitled to protection. Since the trade dress was entitled to protection, the court next determined whether there was a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court found that there was a likelihood of confusion even though the claimed trade dress was weak because there was little evidence that consumers associated the trade dress with Il Mulino. In reaching its finding, the court pointed out that the trade dress in the two restaurants was very similar (not surprising since the new restaurant opened in the exact location as the old restaurant and since social media posts for the new restaurant used images that seemed to draw on social media posts for Il Mulino Tribeca); that both restaurants were Italian; and that defendants seemed to be trying to capitalize on the reputation of Il Mulino. On that basis, the court found a likelihood of consumer confusion and preliminarily enjoined the defendants’ use of the claimed trade dress. Infringement of the IL MULINO Trademark The plaintiffs did not fare so well on their other claims. They claimed that the new restaurant’s name, Il Giglio, infringed on the IL MULINO trademark. Apparently, a prior restaurant affiliated with Il Mulino had operated under the name Il Giglio, but the court did not think consumers would associate the new Il Giglio with the old one. Likewise, the court pointed out that Il Mulino and the new Il Giglio used different fonts for their names and that “Mulino” and “Giglio” sound different and have different meanings. Proprietary Recipes The court seemed prepared to protect any of the plaintiffs’ proprietary recipes that the defendants might be using. However, in the court’s eyes, plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence that the defendants were doing so—the claims were based mostly on the review of a menu and photos of similar-looking preparations of entrees. The court pointed out that neither party presented witnesses at the preliminary injunction hearing, and the plaintiffs did not seek expedited discovery before moving for a preliminary injunction. As a result, the evidence relating to the improper use of the plaintiffs’ proprietary recipes was insufficient. Interestingly, the court raised the possibility of a confusion-based theory as to the plating of dishes (particularly Il Mulino’s branzino) but did not pursue it since plaintiffs failed to develop it. Personal Property Finally, the court declined to enjoin the defendants’ use of certain personal property allegedly belonging to plaintiffs, such as tableware and tens of thousands of dollars of alcohol. According to the court, this personal property was not part of the trade dress, and plaintiffs could be compensated for the use of this property if its use was not enjoined. The court’s decision is a good example of the many different types of intellectual property a restaurant may have and how willing a court will be to protect that intellectual property. If you have questions about protecting your restaurant’s intellectual property or about someone who might be using your restaurant’s intellectual property without authorization, contact me or one of my intellectual property colleagues at Offit Kurman.
February 2, 2024
Intellectual Property
Decorating Danger: Pitfalls in Using Images of Rooms Decorated with Your Furnishings
Everyone does it. A light fixture is featured in a prestigious publication, or a rug is shown in a home featured by an interior design publication. The image (and perhaps an image of the publication’s cover) is quickly reposted on Instagram, added to the company’s website, placed in promotional materials, and otherwise used to promote sales. There’s just one problem. Use of the image could result in costly charges of copyright infringement. Copyright Ownership: Under U.S. law, the general rule is that the author of a work owns the copyright in the work unless the work was created within the scope of their employment, in which case their employer owns the work. In most cases, the photographers working for publications like Interior Design, Architectural Digest, House Beautiful, or Coastal Living are not employees but independent contractors, which means that the photographers, and not the publications, own the copyright in the photos they take and the photos shown by the publications. As a result, the photographer (not the publication) must give permission for any reproduction of their photo, including reproductions on social media or websites. Photographers, not publications, generally own the copyright in photos featured in prestigious publications. Reproduction requires explicit permission from the photographer, extending to social media and websites. Strict Liability in Copyright Infringement: Reproduction without permission is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, meaning there is no defense to whether infringement occurred — either something was copied without permission, or it was not. There are defenses that can be asserted , but these are directed to the amount of damages, not whether there has been infringement. Giving credit to the photographer or the publication is not a defense. Similarly, the fact the one didn’t make any money directly from the use of the photo is not a defense. The fact that an image was available online is generally not a defense. Nor is a court likely to find that such a use is a fair use — to find out if a use is fair use (essentially arguing that no permission was needed), it will probably be necessary to take the case to trial, involving expense in terms of time and money. Costs of Copyright Infringement: If a photographer has timely secured a copyright registration for their photos, they are entitled to statutory damages of up to $30,000 per infringement (and up to $150,000 per infringement if the infringement is shown to be willful). The idea of such an award is to deter future infringement. In addition, the photographer is entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees if a timely copyright registration was made. Reproducing images without permission can lead to costly consequences. Photographers with timely copyright registration can seek damages up to $30,000 per infringement or $150,000 if willful, plus attorney’s fees. Importance of Written Permission: Having permission from the photographer would defeat a claim of copyright infringement, but that permission should be directly from the photographer and should be in writing. Permission from the publication in which the photo appears is probably not enough unless the magazine owns the copyright in the photos. Reality Check — Cease and Desist Letters: Think it can’t happen? It has already happened and will happen again. Entities you know have received cease and desist letters from photographers. Others have been sued (roughly half of the copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the U.S. involve the unauthorized use of a photograph). In either case, payment has likely been made, and either a license permitting the images to stay up has been obtained or the images have been removed. Entities have received cease and desist letters and faced lawsuits for unauthorized photo use. Roughly half of U.S. copyright infringement cases involve unauthorized photo use, resulting in payments and image removal. Protection Against Claims: The best way to protect against a copyright infringement claim is to make sure you have permission to use the photo showing your product or the room you designed or styled (if possible, take the picture yourself!). If a photographer refuses to give you permission, don’t use the image. If you are not sure if you need permission or have permission, contact me or one of my intellectual property colleagues at Offit Kurman — an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
January 24, 2024
Intellectual Property
Trademarks in Your Cereal Bowl
A Closer Look at Post’s Fruity Pebbles Trademark Application It’s likely that you, your kids, or your grandchildren have eaten them. Have you ever thought, though, that you could identify what you are eating just by the fact that multicolor rice crisps are in your bowl? It’s probably not the first thing you think of while you are eating, paying more attention to their crunch and the sound they make when they are in milk. We’re talking about Post’s Fruity Pebbles cereal, of course. While you may not have been thinking that you could identify the contents of your bowl just by looking at the colors in it, Post Foods LLC (“Post”) was thinking that. Thus, Post filed a U.S. trademark application to register the colors of Fruity Pebbles as a trademark for use in connection with breakfast cereals. Interestingly, that application was initially refused, and that refusal was affirmed in a decision issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on January 4, 2024. There were two main reasons for the refusal. First, in its application, Post defined the mark as “consist[ing] of the colors of yellow, green, light blue, purple, orange, red and pink applied to the entire surface of crisp cereal pieces,” as shown in the image below (the application did not claim the shape of the cereal crisps, which makes sense since each crisp has a different shape). However, the application sought registration of the claimed mark (the colors) for use in connection with breakfast cereals, not crisp cereal pieces or breakfast cereals consisting of crisp cereal pieces. Post argued that it sought registration of the colors shown in the drawing as applied to crisp rice cereal pieces. Ultimately, the Trademark Office held that the mark that Post sought to register was the combination of colors as applied to breakfast cereals. This was because the shape of the rice crisps was not claimed as part of the mark and because the application identified the goods as breakfast cereals (which could cover cereals in ring-like shapes as well as cereals shaped like rice crisps). Having determined what mark Post sought to register, the Trademark Office next considered whether the mark was registrable. The Trademark Office concluded that the claimed mark did not function as a source identifier and, thus, that it was not registrable. Why did the Trademark Office reach that conclusion? It was not because the claimed mark consisted of colors—the Trademark Office has long recognized that colors can be trademarks. Rather, it was because, in the Trademark Office’s view, Post had not come forward with sufficient evidence to show that consumers associated the colors used for Fruity Pebbles with breakfast cereals. The evidence showed that a wide variety of breakfast cereals had similar multicolor cereal combinations. Some were for other crisp rice cereals, and some featured diverse shapes. The Trademark Office referenced Fruit Loops; Cap’n Crunch’s OOPS! All Berries corn and oat cereal; Trix Fruity Shapes cereal; Trader Joe’s Fruity O’s cereal; Best Choice Fruity Crisp Rice cereal; Wegmans Fruity Rice Crisps cereal; Clover Valley Fruity Bites rice cereal and others to support this conclusion, as well as articles from various publications. With so many cereals using multicolor combinations, in the Trademark Office’s view, the use of a similar combination on Fruity Pebbles would not cause consumers to identify the cereal as being Fruity Pebbles. Additionally, the Trademark Office pointed out that much of the evidence submitted by Post to support its application pertained to its use of the multicolor combination on crisp rice breakfast cereals, not to the broader breakfast cereals identified in the application. In view of this decision, anyone interested in registering a trademark in the U.S. should keep the following in mind: In the U.S., it is possible to register colors and product configurations as trademarks (it is much more difficult to do this elsewhere in the world); While colors and product configurations can be registered as trademarks in the U.S., it is not an easy thing to do and often requires the submission of extensive evidence showing that consumers recognize the mark; and The advice of experienced trademark counsel is crucial in prosecuting applications like this, from identifying the goods to be covered by an application to assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that a mark functions as a source identifier. At Offit Kurman, we can assist with all aspects of trademark prosecution; please reach out for a consultation or if you have any questions.
January 17, 2024
Intellectual Property
Behind the Headlines: Understanding the Nuances of Mickey Mouse's Public Domain Status
Public Domain Day is a relatively new celebratory event observed on January 1. The purpose of this day is to celebrate the entry of works that were protected by copyright into the public domain. Before Public Domain Day, articles routinely appear reporting on the works entering the public domain name. In recent years, works entering the public domain have included The Great Gatsby (which became the basis for a musical that is likely heading to Broadway), The Jazz Singer, Metropolis, and Winnie-the-Pooh. Before this year's Public Domain Day, articles heralded Mickey Mouse entering the public domain. The implication, of course, is that Mickey Mouse will thus be free for everyone to use — after all, isn't that what it means when something enters the public domain? Not necessarily. Mickey Mouse is not necessarily entering the public domain, but his first appearances in two shorts, Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy, are. Anyone wanting to use Steamboat Willie or Plane Crazy is free to do so. Either (or both) can be shown without permission from or the need to pay royalties to Disney. The same may be true of the version of Mickey Mouse shown in Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy. That version of Mickey Mouse is in black and white, does not speak, and does not wear red pants. However, like many other well-known characters (Sherlock Holmes and James Bond, for example), Mickey Mouse has changed over time and has traits and characteristics that are still protected by copyright; only the earliest works featuring Mickey Mouse are now in the public domain. So, Mickey Mouse, as he appeared in Fantasia, is still off-limits. This is why the trailer for the recently announced slasher film Mickey's Mouse Trap uses the Steamboat Wille version of Mickey Mouse as its villain. The survival horror game Infestation: Origin also features the Steamboat Wille version of Mickey Mouse as its villain. That version of Mickey Mouse also appears set to be the villain in another recently announced untitled horror film. There is another reason Mickey Mouse is not free for everyone to use. Mickey Mouse is undeniably a symbol of Disney, and a consumer seeing goods or services being offered in conjunction with Mickey Mouse is likely to believe that those goods or services are associated with or endorsed by Disney. In other words, Mickey Mouse functions as a trademark. Indeed, Disney has multiple trademark registrations for Mickey Mouse (and for Minnie, Goofy, Pluto, Donald, and many other characters), and any effort to use Mickey Mouse to indicate the source of a product or service will likely be met with a claim of trademark infringement. Moreover, Walt Disney Animation Studio adopted a clip from Steamboat Willie as its logo, strengthening its ability to claim the early version of Mickey Mouse as a trademark. Practical considerations will also limit the availability of Mickey Mouse. Disney is no stranger to litigation and is positioned to impose significant costs on anyone it believes is using more of Mickey Mouse than they are entitled to use. In fact, Disney may very well seek out cases to litigate to concretely establish the scope of its rights in Mickey Mouse (the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did this with respect to Sherlock Holmes, resulting in a ruling in 2014 that at the time, certain of Holmes' characteristics are in the public domain and that certain of his characteristics are not). So, while we can celebrate the entry of Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy into the public domain, one shouldn't assume that Mickey Mouse is likewise now in the public domain. The only sure thing to come from such an assumption is litigation, as it has been reported that Disney has announced its intention to continue to protect its rights. If you have any questions about using Steamboat Willie, Plane Crazy, or any other work that is in the public domain, reach out to Offit Kurman's intellectual property group for a consultation.
January 9, 2024
Intellectual Property
From Palette to Protection: When Does Color Function as a Trademark?
Back when my daughter was in third grade, parents were invited to her classroom to talk about their jobs. I talked about trademarks and brands, discussing products they would appreciate, like HOT WHEELS miniature cars and AMERICAN GIRL dolls. At one point, I told the students that a color can be a trademark and that Mattel claims the right to the color pink as a trademark associated with their BARBIE products. A little girl named Emma spoke up and said, “That doesn’t seem fair that just one company can use a color.” What Emma didn’t know was that she isolated the same issue that the US Supreme Court had considered back in the 1990s when the Court held, in a case involving green-gold dry cleaning machine pads, that a company could claim color as a trademark, but only after years of exclusive use and evidence that the public associates the color with a single source. (By the way, Emma is now in law school.) So what does it take to be able to claim that a color is exclusively for use by one source? First, to be clear, even when a company is able to claim color as a trademark, its rights will only be limited to the goods or services for which the color is used or closely related goods/services. So while Tiffany could stop another jewelry company from using its robin’s-egg blue color, Tiffany would not be able to prevent, say, an HVAC installation company from using this shade. To be eligible for trademark protection, a color must be: Non-functional: The color should not serve a functional purpose related to the product or service. In other words, it should be purely aesthetic. Recognized by the public: The color must have gained recognition and distinctiveness in the minds of consumers. Examples in Advertising: UPS’s Iconic Brown One of the most famous examples of a company successfully using color as a trademark is United Parcel Service (UPS). Instant Recognition: UPS’s brown delivery trucks are instantly recognizable, and the color has become synonymous with the brand’s reliable package delivery services. Consistent Branding: UPS consistently uses brown in its advertising, packaging, and uniforms. This uniformity reinforces the brand’s image and helps it stand out in a crowded market. Promotional Campaigns: “What Can Brown Do For You?” UPS has run advertising campaigns centered around its brown color, emphasizing the reliability and trustworthiness associated with the color brown. Challenges and Legal Considerations While companies like UPS have successfully used color as a trademark, it’s important to note that securing trademark protection for a color can be challenging. Courts often require extensive evidence of distinctiveness and consumer recognition. Additionally, competitors may challenge the validity of color trademarks, arguing that the color is functional or not sufficiently distinctive. Conclusion Color can be a powerful tool for branding and marketing, and some companies, like UPS, have effectively incorporated it into their trademark strategy. However, the legal requirements for securing and defending a color trademark are rigorous. Businesses considering color as a trademark should seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities of trademark law and protect their unique brand identity. If you would like to discuss trademark protection for colors, please reach out to me.
September 26, 2023
Intellectual Property
Trade Dress at a Glance: Protecting the Look and Feel of a Product
When safeguarding their consumer reputation, most companies recognize the value in their brand names, logos, slogans, and their associated goodwill and the importance of protecting those assets. However, many neglect to protect their trade dress: the look and feel of a company’s product, packaging, or services. Trade dress can be a powerful source-identifying tool: rather than protecting a specific name or logo, trade dress is about the “overall design and appearance” of a product. It can include elements that may not be protectable on their own. Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Group of Am., Inc., 269 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2001). Trade dress can come in many forms, and courts have upheld trade dress protection in colors, store layouts, and website designs. The U.S. Supreme Court recently referenced trade dress as part of its discussion on whether elements of a dog squeaky toy infringed on several Jack Daniel’s trademarks — including their styled white filigree and distinctive square bottle. More on that decision and its implications on First Amendment protections can be found in our previous client alert here. This article focuses instead on how companies can incorporate trade dress protections into their intellectual property portfolio. The Elements of Trade Dress To qualify as a protectable trade dress, the product packaging or design must meet two main criteria: it must be inherently distinctive (or have acquired a secondary meaning that makes it source-identifying) and be nonfunctional. “Distinctiveness” can be a nebulous term, and courts consider the distinctiveness of product design and packaging differently. The Supreme Court has held that a product’s design is not inherently distinctive without acquiring secondary meaning that ties it to a brand. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 212 (2000). A product’s packaging, however, or the overall design elements of a restaurant or retail store (which the Court viewed as being more akin to packaging than product), can be inherently distinctive. In instances where an element of package design is particularly unique or fanciful or when several commonplace elements are taken together to make a whole, trade dress may lead a consumer to associate it with a particular company or brand. Some packaging design elements are distinctive enough to qualify as protectable trade dress in their own right. One of the most famous examples is the design of a glass bottle of Coca-Cola; without any additional labeling or context, the average consumer can immediately identify the brand behind it and the product contained within it. Some characteristics, like specific colors, may not be inherently distinctive at their outset but can acquire a secondary meaning through their use — such as Tiffany & Co.’s distinct blue box. Trade dress looks at the entirety of a design. Even commonplace elements without a solid secondary meaning, such as the examples above, can be part of a distinctive trade dress. Grouped together, such elements can form a unique whole, and the more elements used to establish the overall look and feel, the more likely a trade dress is to be protected. For example: in 2013, Apple was able to secure protection for its retail locations’ overall look and feel. Taking the elements of their store design as a whole, Apple conveyed an overall image that was distinct and identified their brand. In some cases, a trademark registered and protected in its own right gained more robust protection through its incorporation into trade dress. In Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 207, 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Guess was found not to have infringed on one of Gucci’s trademarked logos with their similar mark, but the Court found that when the logos were both used in a similar brown-on-beige product design, it was a step too far. Non-functionality is the other essential element of trade dress. Functionality, in this case, covers elements necessary for product use and those that affect cost or quality. When the features that make the product useable and the aesthetic elements that allow a customer to identify the source are one and the same, courts are reluctant to classify those features as trade dress. Visually distinct components that are also protected by a utility patent, for example, are generally not protected as trade dress. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001). However, the inclusion of functional elements in a trade dress does not necessarily render it unprotected. The hands and dial of a watch are undoubtedly useful, but their aesthetic qualities are trade dress. Cartier, Inc. v. Sardell Jewelry, Inc., 294 F. App’x 615 (2d Cir. 2008). A functional aspect that incidentally creates a distinctive feature (such as a decorative embossment made by a patented process) can also be protected trade dress. McAirlaids, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 756 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 2014). Taking Appropriate Action Trade dress is protected by federal law, and companies concerned that a competing product is imitating the look and feel of their trade dress can sue under the Lanham Act. Although it is possible to protect trade dress without registering it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office first, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Taking the proactive step of registering a trade dress makes it easier for companies to enforce their rights: for example, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)(3) states that a person who seeks to protect an unregistered trade dress has the burden of proving the elements they wish to protect are nonfunctional. Registering their trade dress on the principal register can save a company that burden. Companies, particularly the design and marketing departments, should consult with their trademark attorneys early in product development to avoid unintended infringement pitfalls in their products and packaging and to determine if registering their trade dress is practical and serves their specific needs. This summary of legal issues is published for informational purposes only. It does not dispense legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship with those who read it. Readers should obtain professional legal advice before taking any legal action.
July 20, 2023
Intellectual Property
Supreme Court Limits First Amendment Protection in Trademark Parody Case
Decision Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148 (U.S. 2023). This month, the Supreme Court clarified the interplay between the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression and the Lanham Act’s protection against trademark infringement in a case that dealt with a manufacturer of dog toys modeled off of famous liquor bottles. In Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. V.I.P. Products L.L.C., No. 22-148 (U.S. 2023), the Supreme Court ultimately held that when analyzing the propriety of the use of another's trademark, the critical question is whether the trademark is being used for "source identification"—i.e., to communicate the maker, manufacturer, or creator of the work in question. If so, then there is no threshold First Amendment inquiry and an infringement claim can proceed as usual, regardless of whether the use of the trademark had been intended as a parody. Background of Case Jack Daniel's is a case about "dog toys and whiskey," Justice Kagan writes in the very first sentence of the Court's opinion. The dispute began when V.I.P. Products began manufacturing a dog toy primarily modeled after the famous Jack Daniel's Whiskey bottle called "Bad Spaniels." Although the toy largely borrowed the trappings of the iconic Jack Daniel's bottle and label, it altered the words "Jack Daniel's" to "Bad Spaniels," "40% ALC. BY VOL" to "43 percent poo," and "Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey" to "Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet." The toy also disclaimed that it was "not affiliated with Jack Daniel's Distillery." Shortly after the Bad Spaniels chew toy hit the market, Jack Daniels demanded V.I.P. cease its sale. Rather than comply, V.I.P. sought a declaratory judgment in the District Court of Arizona, asserting: (a) it was protected from an infringement claim under the First Amendment according to the test set out for artistic works in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) (adopting a two-pronged threshold test for the Lanham Act to apply: (1) determining whether use has "artistic relevance"; and (2) if so, whether the use is "explicitly misleading" as to the source or content of the work); and (b) it was protected from a dilution claim because the toy was a parody and qualified as fair use under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A). Jack Daniel's countersued, asserting trademark infringement (based on consumer confusion) and dilution. Lower Court Decisions At first, the District Court rejected V.I.P.'s arguments. It held that because the use of Jack Daniel's trademark identified the alleged source of V.I.P.'s product, First Amendment protections did not apply. The district court also refused the parody defense to dilution for essentially the same reason—i.e., the exclusion did not apply when the use of the mark identified the source of the alleged diluter's product. After a bench trial, the district court found “consumers were likely to be confused about the source of the Bad Spaniels toy and that the toy’s negative associations with dog excrement (e.g., “The Old No. 2”) would harm Jack Daniel’s reputation.” The Ninth Circuit reversed. The appellate Court determined the threshold First Amendment Rogers test did apply "because Bad Spaniels is an expressive work" and "communicates a humorous message." In addition to remanding the case on the infringement claim, the Court of Appeals also rejected the dilution claim, reasoning that since the work "parodies and comments humorously on Jack Daniel's," it was protected under the "exclusion for noncommercial use" per 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C). On remand, the District Court applied the Ninth Circuit’s analysis and granted summary judgment in favor of V.I.P. on the infringement claim. After the Ninth Circuit affirmed the second judgment, the Supreme Court accepted Jack Daniel's appeal on the infringement and dilution claims. The Supreme Court’s Decision Reversing and remanding, the Supreme Court largely agreed with the District Court's original analysis. Generally, it held that the threshold First Amendment Rogers test does not apply when someone uses a trademark as a trademark—that is, to identify the source of a product. In so doing, the Court provided several examples to help explain when trademark use is source-identifying versus when it is used to convey another expressive function. For example, the band Aqua's use of Mattel's trademark "Barbie” in the song "Barbie Girl" did not speak to the song's origin but was used to promote a message of positive body image. Another example is the use of "Louis Vuitton" in the film The Hangover: Part II, where a character uses the mark to describe his luggage but mispronounces the name. The use was to convey something about the character – he wants to be seen with the luxury brand but doesn't know how to pronounce its name. These marks were not used to identify the source of the goods but to perform another expressive function, and the Rogers test would apply. On the other hand, when the use "at least in part [is] for source identification," as here where V.I.P. has used trademarks and trade dress derived from Jack Daniel's registrations as a designation of the source to promote its products, then the First Amendment Rogers does not apply because the "defendant may be trading on the goodwill of the trademark owner." For similar reasons, the Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit's decision about the noncommercial exclusion to dilution for "parody" and "fair use." Ultimately, the Court held that neither the First Amendment nor the “noncommercial exclusion” exception to liability applied. Thus, the lawsuit was remanded for further proceedings. Key Takeaways Brand owners have kept a close watch on Jack Daniels, as many were concerned that the Court would significantly expand the immunizing power of parody and humor in trademark infringement cases, allowing a potential infringer to dodge litigation by invoking Rogers. The Court's decision quells those fears. By drawing a clear line under the applicability of the Rogers test in disputes involving trademarks that contain expressive elements, the Court upheld the central ten-ant of trademark law: those using a mark that is similar to or evokes another's trademark as a source identifier to promote its goods or services will be subject to the likelihood of confusion inquiry under the Lanham Act, even if the use is in parody or overtly humorous. The First Amendment considerations do not create a safe harbor for those who trade on the goodwill of another's trademark to gain an advantage. To be clear, the Court's holding does not eviscerate the role of parody. Jack Daniel's only makes the Rogers test unavailable as an escape hatch to achieve a summary dismissal of the infringement action. Satire remains a viable defense in the context of a standard likelihood of confusion inquiry. As the Court noted, "a parody is not often likely to create confusion. Self-deprecation is one thing; self-mockery, far less ordinary." In sum, Jack Daniels refocuses the inquiry on the likelihood of consumer confusion. Companies are encouraged to consider these considerations as they evaluate new trademarks or trade dress during product and brand development. This summary of legal issues is published for informational purposes only. It does not dispense legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship with those who read it. Readers should obtain professional legal advice before taking any legal action.
June 23, 2023
Intellectual Property
Chew on This – SCOTUS Rules that Dog Toy Parodying Jack Daniel’s Can’t Hide Behind First Amendment
On June 8, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Jack Daniel’s in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, overturning the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion, holding that VIP Products’ sale of a dog chew toy in the shape of a Jack Daniel’s bottle, which also has a label replacing “Jack Daniel’s” with “Bad Spaniels” and other parodying of the Jack Daniel’s label in a manner referring to dog defecation, was not sufficiently protected under the First Amendment to avoid liability for trademark infringement or dilution. The SCOTUS decision was not a complete victory for Jack Daniel’s. Having held that the “Bad Spaniel’s” chew toy was not protected from claims of trademark infringement and dilution, Justice Kagan sent the case back down to the US District Court for a determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion and whether “Bad Spaniels” dilutes Jack Daniel’s trademarks. VIP Products’ position was that its “Bad Spaniels” chew toy was an expressive work that conveyed a humorous message and that, therefore, the First Amendment protects the use from a claim of trademark infringement. However, VIP Products had also claimed that “Bad Spaniels” and other parodying elements were trademarks owned by VIP Products. This contributed to VIP Products’ downfall: because VIP Products was using “a trademark to designate the source of its own goods—in other words, … used a trademark as a trademark,” as Justice Kagan put it, VIP Products was not entitled to special First Amendment protection. In making this ruling, Justice Kagan made a point of saying more than once that the parody aspect of the “Bad Spaniels” toy could factor into an analysis of the likelihood of confusion. In other words, where such content is a parody, consumers are less likely to be confused into thinking that the parodic products come from the same source as the product being parodied. SCOTUS also knocked down the 9th Circuit’s holding that there was no trademark dilution. Under federal trademark dilution law, owners of famous trademarks can sue users of identical and very similar trademarks even where there is no likelihood of confusion. The 9th Circuit said VIP Products’ use was “noncommercial” because it was a parody and conveyed a humorous message. Justice Kagan disagreed, finding that the 9th Circuit’s view was too expansive and noting that there are limitations in the dilution law where the parodying content is used as a source identifier of the accused product. What can we take away from this decision? This is by no means an absolute bar on selling items that may constitute a parody of a brand, even a famous one. However, creators of such products would do well to avoid treating the parodying elements as trademarks and avoid any content or action that could mislead the public into thinking there is a source connection between the parodied product and the parodying one.
June 13, 2023
Intellectual Property
Does the First Amendment Protect the Use of Parody for Commercial Purposes?
The US Supreme Court Will Decide On March 22, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. In a case that pits trademark rights against free speech claims, Jack Daniel's has sued VIP Products for trademark infringement due to VIP Products' sale of a dog chew toy in the shape of a Jack Daniel's bottle with a label replacing "Jack Daniel's" with "Bad Spaniels" and engaging in other parodying of the Jack Daniel's label in a manner referring to dog defecation. VIP Products takes the position that its parody should be protected under the First Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause. Jack Daniel's view is that a company selling a commercial product that makes humorous use of the Jack Daniel's brand should not be entitled to First Amendment protection. I discovered in a store in Colorado that "Bad Spaniels" is just one of a line of dog toys parodying liquor brands. Although it may be that Jack Daniel's is the only brand worked up enough about this to bring a lawsuit (and take it all the way to the Supreme Court), several third parties have filed briefs in support of Jack Daniel's position, including Campbell Soup Company, Nike, and several trade associations. The Supreme Court's decision will likely issue in June.
February 23, 2023
Intellectual Property
USPTO Shortens Time for Response to Office Actions
On December 3, 2022, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is making a big change to the requirements to respond to rejections or requirements for further information. Background: When a business files an application for trademark registration in the US, it is (eventually) examined, and the examining attorney will either approve the application or issue an Office Action. The Office Action is a letter that will either refuse to accept the application (because of a prior similar registration or other ground for refusal) or require amendments to a part of the application (such as the description of goods) before the application can be accepted. Throughout recorded history, the USPTO has given the applicant six months to respond to the Office Action. Big Change: For Office Actions issued on or after December 3, the USPTO will require a response within three months of the date of issue of the Office Action. It is possible to extend this time for an additional three months with payment of a fee. The fee will need to be paid before the 3-month deadline; it will not be automatic and cannot be paid after the fact. What this means for applicants: Your attorney handling the application will notify you when an Office Action issues and will let you know the deadline to respond or request the extension. It will be important to review the issues with your attorney and make a plan for responding without delay. Additional considerations: For now, this change only applies to Office Actions issued in pending applications. For Office Actions that might issue in response to a post-registration renewal or declaration of use, the same change will take effect on October 7, 2023. For more information about this rule change or any issues related to trademark protection or registration, please contact Laura Winston.
October 17, 2022
Intellectual Property
Trademark Law v. The First Amendment – the Saga Continues
In recent years, the US Supreme Court found that two provisions of the US trademark law that date back to the 1940s were unconstitutional because they violated the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam, it was the law prohibiting registration of disparaging trademarks, and in In re Brunetti, it was the law prohibiting registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. Now the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reached a similar conclusion in a less obvious case. In In re Elster, decided on February 24, an attorney applied to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL for “T-shirts.” Registration was refused based on a provision that prohibits trademark registration of a name identifying a particular living individual without that individual’s consent (and another ground not ultimately considered on appeal). Elster appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which upheld the refusal. Elster then appealed to the Federal Circuit. The federal government argued that the government interest in protecting state-law privacy and publicity rights outweighed Elster’s First Amendment rights. The court noted that Trump, as a public figure, had no right of privacy-protecting him from criticism in the absence of knowingly publishing false information or doing so with reckless disregard for the truth. The court also said, “The right of publicity does not support a government restriction on the use of a mark because the mark is critical of a public official without his or her consent.” The court ultimately concluded that the free speech provisions of the first amendment outweighed the government interest and that “[t]he statute leaves the [US Patent and Trademark Office] no discretion to exempt trademarks that advance parody, criticism, commentary on matters of public importance, artistic transformation, or any other First Amendment interests. It effectively grants all public figures the power to restrict trademarks constituting First Amendment expression before they occur.” And so the court reversed the TTAB’s decision and found the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL to be registrable. In reaching its decision, the court made clear that it was not concluding that the relevant section of the trademark law is overbroad, saying it was leaving that question for another day. Rather, it was saying that the application of the law to Elster’s trademark was in violation of his First Amendment rights. Still, this leaves the door open for other trademark applicants for such marks that are parody or critical commentary to raise the overbreadth challenge in the future. Are you considering adoption of a trademark that includes the name of a living individual? For guidance on the evolving state of the law as it applies to your situation, contact Laura Winston at lwinston@offitkurman.com or 347-589-8536.
March 17, 2022
Intellectual Property
New Year, New Trademark Law – Petitions for Expungement and Reexamination of Trademark Registrations
Petitions for Expungement and Reexamination of Trademark Registrations The Trademark Modernization Act took effect on December 18, 2021, and now it is easier and less expensive to cancel unused registered trademarks. Any party can bring an expungement or reexamination proceeding to remove a trademark from the register. An expungement proceeding is when a party believes that a trademark has never been used in commerce. The proceeding must be brought when the registration is between 3 and 10 years old (although until December 27, 2023, the proceeding can be brought against any registration more than three years old). A reexamination proceeding is for when a party believes that a trademark was not in use at the time an application based on use was filed or when use is claimed in an application originally based on intent to use. The proceeding must be brought before the 5th anniversary of the registration. Below are answers to questions some may have about these new proceedings. How do expungement and reexamination differ from a trademark cancellation action? These new, simplified proceedings will be brought before Trademark Examining Attorneys instead of the judges of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. A cancellation action, which is similar to a lawsuit in federal court, has discovery, a trial, and the possibility of motions. Expungement and reexamination will be much more streamlined – the petitioner files a petition setting forth the information to demonstrate non-use. The registrant then has the opportunity to file a response including evidence of use or excusable non-use. The Examining Attorney then reaches a decision based on the petition and response. If the Examining Attorney orders that the registration be canceled, the registrant has the opportunity to file a request for reconsideration and appeal. The costs for expungement and reexamination will be considerably lower than a start-to-finish cancellation proceeding. The filing fee for expungement or re-exam is $400 per class of goods or services, which is less than the $600/class fee for a cancellation action. More significantly, the legal costs for handling the proceeding will be significantly less than for a cancellation action. If there’s no discovery, how does the petitioner show that the mark was not used? The petitioner is required to submit the results of a “reasonable investigation.” This will vary based on the goods or services, relevant industry and customary channels of trade for the goods or services. Generally speaking, a thorough use investigation conducted by an experienced private investigator will likely be appropriate Why would I want to file a petition for expungement or reexamination of a third party’s registration? There are various reasons to file for expungement or reexamination, but the most common reason is likely to be that a party wants to adopt a new trademark that cannot be registered because of prior registration. How can I avoid a petition for expungement or reexamination being filed against a trademark registration I own? If you are selling the goods or rendering the services covered by your trademark, it is unlikely that someone will file a petition for expungement or reexamination against your registration. It will be helpful to make sure that you are actively demonstrating your use and showing your products and services on your website and on social media as may be appropriate for your business and industry. If you have any questions about the use of your trademarks, please feel free to contact me. I was able to get my registration without using the trademark. Can someone petition for expungement or reexamination against my registration? Trademark owners from most countries outside of the US can register trademarks in the US if they are registered in the owner’s home country. If this is your situation, your registration will be vulnerable to an expungement proceeding after three years (and before ten years) if it has never been used. The best way to avoid expungement will be to sell your goods or render your services in the US. Need assistance in navigating the new expungement and reexamination proceedings or guidance on protecting, enforcing or defending trademarks pursuant to these amendments? Please contact Laura Winston at lwinston@offitkurman.com or 347-589-8536.
January 14, 2022
Intellectual Property
Name, Image & Likeness (NIL): Three Key Legal Issues Facing Businesses in College Athlete Endorsement Deals to Date
The commercial landscape of college athletics has experienced significant change in recent months. The release of the new NCAA “interim policy,” prompted in part by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston, has allowed college athletes and businesses to benefit from new endorsement and income opportunities involving the licensing of an athlete’s name, image, and likeness (“NIL”). Following the NCAA interim policy released in June 2021, a multitude of states enacted NIL statutes outlining the procedures and limitations for endorsement deals by athletes to license their NIL. Despite the world of opportunities that have opened up, the NIL landscape faces ongoing uncertainty and potential pitfalls due to the patchwork of NCAA, state, and university rules and regulations requiring compliance by college athletes and businesses. In order to benefit from all that NIL has to offer and avoid problems, businesses should be aware of three main legal issues that have been prevalent in NIL deals to date. (1) NIL agreements should comply with NCAA policies, state laws, and university rules In pursuing opportunities to contract with college athletes, businesses should perform their legal due diligence before finalizing any deal. Companies should strive to ensure that an NIL agreement complies with the NCAA interim policy, state law, and any applicable rules adopted by the school itself. If the state has yet to pass an NIL statute, the agreement should be flexible enough to accommodate future laws that may be enacted. Businesses should also consider that Congress may adopt a uniform federal law affecting NIL agreements. Even if a possible NIL deal satisfies the relevant state laws, businesses should also seek compliance with NCAA policies, such as the prohibitions against both pay-to-play and using NIL as a recruiting inducement. This means the agreement and related compensation cannot be, among other things, contingent on the athlete attending a specific school, participating in a certain number of games, or performing at a certain level. Businesses seeking endorsement deals with college athletes should also be aware of the categorical prohibitions on athlete association with certain brands or products under state law or university rules. These categorical exclusions vary by state and by institution and may even be enforced through team-specific codes of conduct. (2) NIL agreements should avoid conflicts with the university’s intellectual property and existing sponsorships A frequent hot topic in NIL deals has been the potential for conflicts with existing school or team sponsorships and with the use of school-specific intellectual property (“IP”), which may involve the school’s logos, nick-names, slogans, mascots, venues, and in some cases, team colors. Businesses should be aware of the possible limitations of NIL deals. NIL deals usually grant the sponsor the right to use the athlete’s IP. However, these agreements may not cover the use of the school’s IP, and the schools are not obligated to agree that their IP can be used. If the business wants the athlete to wear their team jersey, use the team locker room, or showcase a school landmark, the company will need to seek permission from the school itself. Universities have sometimes invoked their right to refuse such requests. Additionally, agreements between businesses and college athletes cannot conflict with existing school or team sponsorships with other companies. Athletes may face serious consequences if a NIL deal conflicts with existing sponsorships. Thus, it is in the business’s best interest to ensure that such conflicts do not occur. (3) NIL agreements should consider social media legal and branding issues The marketing opportunities presented by NIL deals have attracted both national brands and small, regional, and non-traditional businesses that may have previously struggled to secure high-profile endorsements. Nearly all businesses can now partner with college athletes, especially for relatively low-cost social media campaigns promoting their brands to an athlete’s followers. Using an athlete’s NIL in a social media campaign presents an enticing option for businesses that wish to engage with a younger audience, but there are certain risks associated with social media that should be evaluated and monitored closely. First, businesses should carefully vet the athlete and ensure that their personal brand and character align with the business’s approach to marketing. Social media campaigns can allow athletes to promote a company in a way that feels more personal and authentic to consumers. However, social media platforms also allow for real-time posting of user-generated content, which might not be subject to prior review. This could potentially hurt the business’s image if the athlete or others make comments that are not a good fit for the company. In addition, the ease through which photos and videos are shared on social media presents the risk of an athlete inadvertently violating IP limitations imposed by the school. To avoid these issues, businesses should consider designating a representative who will be responsible for managing the social media relationship between the athlete and the company’s brand. Conclusion In short, the groundbreaking changes in the NCAA interim policy on NIL have opened up a world of opportunities for businesses and college athletes. However, the legal risks associated with NIL deals require the respective parties to stay well informed on the relevant and quickly changing rules and regulations. In order to ensure your business is well protected, it is important to consult with counsel before entering into any NIL agreement. This summary of legal issues is published for informational purposes only. It does not dispense legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship with those who read it. Readers should obtain professional legal advice before taking any legal action.
December 29, 2021
Intellectual Property
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Finds Reckless Disregard for the Truth Equals Fraud, Cancels Trademark Registration
The U.S. trademark law provides that a trademark registration may be canceled if it was obtained fraudulently. A registration may also be canceled if the registrant commits fraud in post-registration filings, including a Section 15 Declaration of Incontestability. Often filed in combination with the Section 8 Declaration of Use due in the 6th year of a registration, the Section 15 Declaration of Incontestability may be filed if the registrant has been using a registered mark continuously for the previous five years. However, certain other conditions are met, including that there are no pending proceedings, such as a lawsuit in federal court or a cancellation action before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). This was the issue in Chutter, Inc. v. Great Management Group, LLC and Chutter, Inc. v. Great Concepts, LLC, 2021 USPQ2d 1001 (TTAB 2021). In 2010, when Great Concepts was submitting a combined Section 8 and 15 Declaration of Use and Incontestability for its trademark DANTANNA’S, the attorney for Great Concepts signed the declaration. He was aware that there were pending proceedings involving the trademark registration but, he later admitted, he did not read the declaration before signing it, and he was not familiar with the requirements of the Section 15 declaration. Years later, Chutter, Inc. filed a cancellation action against the registration, claiming that the Section 15 Declaration was fraudulently filed. In its decision, the TTAB noted that fraud requires an intent to deceive; false statements made with a reasonable and honest belief that they are true do not result in a finding of fraud. The TTAB went on to find that the attorney who signed the declaration acted with reckless disregard and held that this reckless disregard rises to the level of intent to deceive needed to find fraud. Moreover, although the trademark law allows for the opportunity in certain circumstances to correct misstatements once they are discovered, the attorney who signed the declaration did not take any corrective steps once he discovered that he had made false statements in the declaration. “By failing to ascertain and understand the import of the document he was signing, far from conscientiously fulfilling his duties as counsel, [the attorney] acted in reckless disregard for the truth; nor did he take any action to remedy the error once it was brought to his attention.” Stating that the attorney’s reckless disregard was “the legal equivalent of finding that Defendant Great Concepts had specific intent to deceive the USPTO”, the TTAB granted the petition to cancel the DANTANNA’S registration. Why does this decision matter to trademark owners? It’s a reminder to review carefully the statements in the documents you are signing and to ask questions if you do not understand something and speak up if something does not sound right. Although there is generally a high bar to a finding of fraud leading to the cancellation of a trademark registration, this case shows that a lack of attention to reviewing and understanding the statements being made in trademark declarations can constitute “willful blindness” that rises to the level of reckless disregard and cancellation of one’s trademark registration could be the result.
October 14, 2021
Intellectual Property
Navigating the New NIL Landscape: A Checklist for Athletes Looking to Profit
On June 30, 2021, the college athletics landscape was significantly altered, as the NCAA announced an “interim policy” concerning the commercialization of college athletes’ names, images and likenesses (“NIL”). NIL includes an athlete’s name, appearance, signature, nicknames and any other signs, slogans, sayings or symbols that can be used to identify that individual. Here is a basic step-by-step guide to help college athletes profit from their own NIL while complying with NCAA, state and school rules: (1) Know the interim NCAA policy. Athletes can now profit from NIL. State law where the school is located will apply. The school’s rules will also apply, even if there is no state NIL law. You can hire professional representation (attorneys, agents) with certain limitations. You must report NIL activities consistent with state law and school rules. Avoid NIL affiliation with NCAA’s banned sub-stances (drugs, performance-enhancing drugs, etc.). (2) Does your state have an NIL law? If so, know it. In order to play the game, you have to know the rules. Therefore, start by learning about your state's NIL law. If you are unsure, contact your athletic department or a local attorney for guidance. What are the “banned categories” in the state (drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc.)? What are the reporting requirements? What makes someone eligible to help you with NIL deals (state agency requirements)? (3) Know your institution’s NIL policy. You must know what your school does and does not allow. Can you use the school’s logo or facilities in your NIL activities with or without pre-approval? Is there a process to request approval to use school logos and facilities? Can you conduct NIL activities during team-sanctioned events? What are your school’s “banned categories”? Are there special NIL social media rules? Does your proposed endorsement conflict with the school’s existing product agreements? What are the school’s NIL reporting requirements? Does your school have a designated NIL administrator to help you? What is the enforcement mechanism and ap-peal procedure if you make an alleged NIL mistake? (You should consider hiring professional representation to help avoid this.) (4) Protect your NIL. If you are in the market for significant NIL deals, you should consider protecting your intellectual property (“IP”). Seek legal counsel with experience in both IP and sports law. The initial consultation will typically be at no cost. Beyond that, a small expense up front can pay off down the road. Register your IP. Register your name, nickname, or slogan as domain names. Protect your right to use your own NIL and prevent unauthorized third-party use by filing for trademark protection. What is a trademark? It is a word (name or nickname), symbol, design or slogan that can specifically identify you in commercial activities. Consider hiring a trademark attorney to assist you. How do I determine if it is cost-effective to take these steps? The NIL market is extremely new and, therefore, tough to judge. However, the more substantial contracts are being executed by players with larger social media followings and on-field presence. Regardless, do NOT sell yourself short. Test the market and see what deals you may attract. (5) Understand the impact of any earned income. Earning income from NIL may affect your personal financial situation, including your tax status and liabilities, your immigration status, and/or your financial aid package. (6) Seriously consider hiring professional representation. In accordance with NCAA, state and school guidelines, consider obtaining professional representation, such as an attorney or agent registered in the state. Also, consider whether obtaining financial, tax, immigration or other professional advice would be helpful. At the end of the day, no NIL deal is worth your NCAA eligibility or institutional good standing. This summary of legal issues is published for informational purposes only. It does not dispense legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship with those who read it. Readers should obtain professional legal advice before taking any legal action.
September 13, 2021
Intellectual Property
A Checklist for University Policies Addressing Student-Athlete Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) Issues
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Alston v. NCAA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") issued an interim policy announcing that it will no longer enforce its rules prohibiting compensation for the use of a student-athlete's name, image and likeness ("NIL"). Other athletic associations have like-wise amended their bylaws to allow student-athletes to profit from the use of their NIL. Additionally, new laws recently enacted by many states, such as Pennsylvania, now require institutions of higher education to publish policies on these issues. To comply with NCAA rules and state law, universities face a range of somewhat complex considerations in forming and implementing NIL policies and procedures. Here are some of the key issues in the form of a practical checklist: Know the NCAA policy or the policy of the athletic association that governs your institution's teams. The NCAA has a Division Manual for each of its three divisions. The Manuals are several hundred pages long and include at least several dozen policies that address issues that may be impacted by NIL activity. These manuals and policies have not yet been revised. Instead, the NCAA's interim policy states simply: "Individuals can engage in NIL activities that are consistent with the law of the state where the school is located. Colleges and universities may be a resource for state law questions. Individuals can use a professional services provider for NIL activities. College athletes who attend a school in a state without a NIL law can engage in NIL activity without violating NCAA rules related to name, image, and likeness. State law and schools/conferences may impose reporting requirements." https://www.ncaa.org/about/taking-action Know what hasn't changed in the NCAA manuals. Subject to state law, the NCAA still prohibits a "NIL agreement without quid pro quo (e.g., compensation for work not performed)." Subject to state law, the NCAA prohibits "NIL compensation contingent upon enrollment at a particular school." Subject to state law, the NCAA still prohibits "compensation for athletic participation or achievement. Athletic performance may enhance a student-athlete's NIL value, but athletic performance may not be the 'consideration' for NIL compensation." Subject to state law, the NCAA still prohibits "institutions providing compensation in exchange for the use of a student-athlete's name, image or likeness." https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/NIL/NIL_QandA.pdf (See Q. 11) Know your state's NIL law. A majority of states have enacted brand-new NIL laws, and the requirements vary considerably. Some states even require that institutions create funds from ticket sales or other promotional activities to benefit athletes. Pennsylvania's new law contains many provisions similar to those in other states. For example: Pennsylvania's law applies to institutions within Pennsylvania and to students participating in intercollegiate athletics at those institutions. The laws of other states may also apply to their residents regardless of where they attend school. 24 P.S. §20-2001k, et seq. Pennsylvania's law permits college athletes to earn compensation for the use of the athlete's NIL and provides that the compensation must be commensurate with the market value of the athlete's NIL. Pennsylvania's law prohibits college athletes from accepting compensation in exchange for their attendance, participation, or performance at the institution ("pay-for-play"). Pennsylvania's law prohibits college athletes from earning compensation for NIL use "in connection with a person, company or organization related to or associated with the development, production, distribution, wholesaling or retailing" of the following: Adult entertainment products and services. Alcohol products. Casinos and gambling, including sports betting, the lottery, and betting in connection with video games, online games, and mobile devices. Tobacco and electronic smoking products and devices. Prescription pharmaceuticals. A controlled, dangerous substance. Other products or activities prohibited by the institution. Pennsylvania's law also permits institutions to prohibit student NIL use more broadly: (i) in activities that conflict with existing institutional sponsorship arrangements and (ii) based on other considerations that conflict with institutional values, as defined by the institution. The Pennsylvania law requires institutions to have policies that "specify the name, image or like-ness activities [in] which the college student may not engage." Pennsylvania's law requires students to disclose proposed NIL contracts to a designated official of the institution at least seven days before the execution of the contract. Pennsylvania's law prohibits institutions (i) from preventing student-athletes from earning compensation through the use of the student's NIL or (ii) from obtaining professional representation in relation to NIL use. Pennsylvania's law prohibits institutions from arranging third-party compensation for a student-athlete relating to NIL use as an inducement to recruit prospective students. Pennsylvania's law requires any person producing a college team jersey, video game, or trading card for profit to make a royalty payment to each athlete whose NIL or "other individually identifiable feature" is used. Pennsylvania's law does not require institutions to facilitate or enable NIL opportunities for athletes. The law specifically states that it does not require an institution to permit athletes to use the institution's marks, logos, mascots, or other intellectual property. Know your state's student-athlete agency law. Many states, including Pennsylvania, require registration, which may include payment of fees and posting of bonds. See, e.g., 5 Pa.C.S. §3301 et seq. Tell the students where to find a list of "banned products." Pennsylvania's law requires that institutions disclose to students the types of deals that the institution prohibits. Therefore, institutional policies should let students know which products and activities are prohibited by state law and by institutional decree. For example, should student-athletes be permitted to engage in NIL activity for CBD and hemp products? Nutritional supplements? Guns? Professional sports teams? Gambling? Broadcasters? Can they contract with university entities, such as a meal service? Institutional policies should also specify products that conflict with school contracts, such as institutional sponsorship deals that include exclusivity promises. Policies should let students know whether all teams have a conflict or just certain teams. Is certain activity prohibited on social media? Tell students whether and how they can use the school's copyright materials (including game footage, logos, nicknames, mascots, etc.), and if appropriate, how to get permission to do so. Consider requiring all vendors, whether involved through the student NIL process or otherwise, to seek approval in the same way for the use of school marks. Tell students whether they can use the school's facilities and fields for NIL purposes, and if so, how to get permission to do so. Tell students whether NIL activity can interfere with class time or team activities. Warn students of other potential hazards, including: The need to consult with the designated school official for international students (because many students are in the United States on visas that prohibit employment), and The need to consult with the financial aid office (because a successful NIL venture may result in income, which may need to be included in determining income-based financial aid eligibility and awards). Indeed, before rolling out an NIL policy, it might be a good idea to coordinate with the university's financial aid office and international student office. Require disclosure of student-athlete NIL contracts. Pennsylvania law requires disclosure to the institution of all NIL contracts at least seven days prior to the execution of the contract. In other states, some institutions are establishing dollar amount thresholds. Your policy should clarify what happens in the event the institution is unable to respond in a timely manner. Does a failure to respond mean that the student has the institution's approval to proceed? Create a formal process for disclosure of NIL deals by student-athletes and review by the school. Many schools may find it helpful to designate an NIL coordinator. Consider requiring all agents representing student-athletes for NIL activities to register with your school and to provide basic information. Consider advising students of the need to comply with NCAA rules regarding agents, including that students "shall be ineligible… if the individual enters into an oral or written agreement with an agent for representation in future professional sports negotiations that are to take place after the individual has completed eligibility in that sport." NCAA Manual, Div. 1, 2021-22, bylaw 12.3.1.3. Consider providing education to students about (a) the NIL and agent registration laws, (b) protecting intellectual property, (c) financial acumen, and (d) university policies and procedures. Consider an internal appeal process or grievance process for NIL issues. Consider other policies and documents that may require review and revision: School contracts containing licensing provisions. Will the school be responsible for student NIL disputes with a university vendor? Insurance policies. Will the university's insurance respond if there are disputes? Social media policies. Student forms granting the university permission to use the student's NIL in connection with university promotional activity. Student discipline policies which may need to specifically identify the types of discipline that may be assessed on students who violate NIL rules. Student grievance policies. Do existing policies allow students to file complaints if the institution prohibits a proposed NIL contract or fails to respond to a proposed contract? Takeaways. Institutions of higher education must create policies to inform student-athletes of their rights and responsibilities and consider updating related rules across the full range of inter-connected issues within the institution. Institutions must be prepared to make further updates as additional guidance becomes available and as rules change.
September 13, 2021
