Tag: Trademark

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Clarifies that Trademark Protection Is Available for “Graduated” and “Undefined” Color Schemes

There are a number of famous colors that are trademark-protected – such as the color brown, which is registered by UPS, and the color “robin egg blue”, which is registered by Tiffany & Co. This protection stems from the fact that such marks are “inherently distinctive”. That is, the colors have become so readily recognized by the purchasing public as being associated with goods or services. However, some color marks that comprise “undefined” multiple colors, including graduated colors (i.e., where one color fades into another) have generally been treated as never being able to rise to the level of being inherently distinctive.

On April 8, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) erred in ruling that an “undefined” color trademark on products and product packaging cannot be distinctive enough for registration unless consumers already recognize it as an indicator of product source. In Re: Forney Industries, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 19-1073, Opinion 4/8/20.

In its federal registration application, Forney Industries, Inc. described its multi-color trademark as “a solid black stripe at the top” and “[b]elow the solid black stripe is the color yellow which fades into the color red” (emphasis added). Early on, the Examining Attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and later the TTAB, decided that Forney multi-color scheme could not be inherently distinctive.

The TTAB cited two Supreme Court decisions supporting its position – that product and packaging marks using color without defined borders or shape also cannot be inherently distinctive. The CAFC found that the board’s decision overstated the Supreme Court precedent and ruled that the TTAB erred by holding that: (1) a multi-color mark can never be inherently distinctive, and (2) product packaging marks that employ color cannot be inherently distinctive in the absence of a well-defined peripheral shape or border.

The CAFC stated that the correct standard to apply in determining inherent distinctiveness is a legal question, which it could review de novo. The CAFC then recognized that neither the Supreme Court nor it, has directly addressed whether a multi-color mark such as described by Forney can ever be inherently distinctive. Recognizing the “Forney is not attempting to preempt the use of the colors red, yellow, and black, but instead seeks to protect only the particular combination of these colors, arranged in a particular design”, the CAFC concluded that there are instances when a multi-color mark, as well as single-color marks, can be inherently distinctive and, therefore, federally protected via the USPTO.

If your products or product packaging is recognizable by your customers, you may want to consider taking the extra step of applying for federal registration of that color, even if the color is not uniform and blends into other colors. Also, consider consulting an attorney who is well-versed in the area of trademark law to make sure that the description of your color mark is worded the best way possible.

There are a number of famous colors that are trademark-protected – such as the color brown, which is registered by UPS, and the color “robin egg blue”, which is registered by Tiffany & Co. This protection stems from the fact that such marks are “inherently distinctive”. That is, the colors have become so readily recognized by the purchasing public as being associated with goods or services. However, some color marks that comprise “undefined” multiple colors, including graduated colors (i.e., where one color fades into another) have generally been treated as never being able to rise to the level of being inherently distinctive.

On April 8, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) erred in ruling that an “undefined” color trademark on products and product packaging cannot be distinctive enough for registration unless consumers already recognize it as an indicator of product source. In Re: Forney Industries, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 19-1073, Opinion 4/8/20.

In its federal registration application, Forney Industries, Inc. described its multi-color trademark as “a solid black stripe at the top” and “[b]elow the solid black stripe is the color yellow which fades into the color red” (emphasis added). Early on, the Examining Attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and later the TTAB, decided that Forney multi-color scheme could not be inherently distinctive.

The TTAB cited two Supreme Court decisions supporting its position – that product and packaging marks using color without defined borders or shape also cannot be inherently distinctive. The CAFC found that the board’s decision overstated the Supreme Court precedent and ruled that the TTAB erred by holding that: (1) a multi-color mark can never be inherently distinctive, and (2) product packaging marks that employ color cannot be inherently distinctive in the absence of a well-defined peripheral shape or border.

The CAFC stated that the correct standard to apply in determining inherent distinctiveness is a legal question, which it could review de novo. The CAFC then recognized that neither the Supreme Court nor it, has directly addressed whether a multi-color mark such as described by Forney can ever be inherently distinctive. Recognizing the “Forney is not attempting to preempt the use of the colors red, yellow, and black, but instead seeks to protect only the particular combination of these colors, arranged in a particular design”, the CAFC concluded that there are instances when a multi-color mark, as well as single-color marks, can be inherently distinctive and, therefore, federally protected via the USPTO.

If your products or product packaging is recognizable by your customers, you may want to consider taking the extra step of applying for federal registration of that color, even if the color is not uniform and blends into other colors. Also, consider consulting an attorney who is well-versed in the area of trademark law to make sure that the description of your color mark is worded the best way possible.

© 2020 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights Reserved

For more on trademark enforcement, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property Law section.

Trademark Applicant & Chinese IP Agency Fined for Malicious Registration of Coronavirus Related Trademarks

On March 26, 2020, the Shaoxing Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province fined a Chinese intellectual property firm, a trademark applicant and a trademark agent responsible for attempting to register a trademark for “Li Wenliang” (李文亮), a famous doctor that later succumbed to COVID-19 after earlier attempts to warn others of a possible new outbreak.   Specifically, the Bureau fined applicant Yang Mofang, the agency Shaoxing Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. and the trademark agent Chen Mougang 2,000 RMB, 20,000 RMB and 10,000 RMB respectively. This is believed to be the first time a trademark applicant was fined for malicious filing of a trademark.  This is the second IP agency to be fined.

On March 3, 2020, the Shaoxing Market Supervision Bureau was informed that Shaoxing Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.  represented the trademark applicant Yang Moufang for the trademark registration application of “Li Wenliang.”  On the 4th , the Municipal Bureau’s Trademark Advertising Office and the Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Team conducted surprise inspections of relevant business establishments, conducted administrative interviews with relevant responsible persons  and required them to withdraw their applications immediately. In the afternoon, the agency quickly withdrew the trademark registration application. On the 5th, the Shaoxing Municipal Bureau filed an investigation on the applicant, agency and directly responsible person for the malicious registration of the “Li Wenliang” trademark. On March 26, administrative penalties were imposed on the relevant parties.

Per the Bureau, “Li Wenliang was a Wuhan Central Hospital ophthalmologist  unfortunately infected in the fight against new coronavirus epidemic. After his sacrifice, public opinion in the whole society was highly concerned and he had achieved a high degree of popularity and influence in the country. Several parties in the case knew or should have known these circumstances and still applied for trademarks on Dr. Li, which could easily cause significant social adverse effects.”

© 2020 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more on IP and other COVID-19 affected industries, see the dedicated National Law Review Coronavirus News page.

Bank Strategy Briefing: Moving Away From Common Bank Names

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a bank’s name. After all, it’s the centerpiece of a bank’s long-term branding strategy. Before reaching the teller line or setting up a meeting with a banker, seeing a bank’s name on a branch sign, billboard or website is likely the first interaction a customer has with the institution.  With many Midwest institutions approaching or surpassing 100-year anniversaries, a bank’s name may reflect generations of service to a community or the ownership family’s legacy.

Many banks share common names

A surprisingly large number of banks in the U.S. share common naming elements, as detailed below:

tableforweb[2].png

While many reasons for this degree of commonality exist, community pride and company history among them, similar names can result in market confusion, or worse, trademark disputes.

To differentiate themselves, a number of banks have begun changing names. In some instances, it’s a legal name change as specified in the institution’s articles, while in others it’s adopting a trade name.

How to change a bank’s legal name

The process for changing a legal name is relatively simple. First, a thorough search must be conducted to ensure the new name is available. This search would identify existing bank trademarks for the name as well as other potential uses that could cause marketplace confusion. Then comes amending the bank’s articles of incorporation. This requires board and shareholder approval. Once the amendment is effective, customer-facing marketing materials and legal documentation will need to reflect the new legal name.

How to adopt a trade name

Trade names are more nuanced and compliance-sensitive. In addition to validating that a name is available for use, various banking agencies require disclosures about the trade name to appear in signage, advertising and account-opening documentation. This helps customers understand that accounts under each name will be aggregated when calculating FDIC insurance coverage. For example, the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution’s (WDFI’s) guidance requires disclosure that trade names be identified as a “branch” of the bank. WDFI does not permit other descriptors like “division” or “unit.”

Name changes create new marketing opportunities

Beyond the legal and logistical aspects of a name change, it’s important to develop a robust marketing plan to maximize the opportunity a name change creates. Consider ways to reintroduce the bank to the marketplace and retell its story to the community.

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Ferrero Successfully Enforces the Tic Tac Shape Mark in Italy

Many of us had a Tic Tac box in our pockets as kids, no matter the country we grew up in. Ferrero Spa (“Ferrero”), the Italian manufacturer of Tic Tac (and lots of other delicious confectionary products) registered the Tic Tac box as a trade mark in several jurisdictions, including Italy.

After succeeding before the CJEU in the invalidation action against BMB sp. z o.o. earlier this year (click here), in a recent case brought before the Italian courts, Ferrero successfully defended its shape marks, despite the invalidity claim brought by S.r.o. Mocca spol. (“Mocca”), a Czech company selling Bliki-branded mints in an identical container.

Background

In 2017, Ferrero commenced proceedings against Mocca for infringement of its 3D reputed trade marks, the earliest of which was registered in 1973, as well as unfair competition.

Mocca, on the other end, argued that:

  1. an Italian court had no jurisdiction, as Mocca’s mints were produced in the Czech Republic;
  2. Ferrero’s trade marks would be invalid, as the shape would give substantial value to the goods or would be necessary to obtain a technical result; and
  3. there would be no likelihood of confusion because the containers would carry different word marks and the shape of the mints is standard in the industry.

The court’s findings

The court of Turin determined that it did have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the claimant was enforcing Italian trade marks, irrespective of where the defendant resides. The court also noted that sales of the Bliki products had taken place in Italy, providing further reason for the Italian court’s jurisdiction.

With regard to the second argument brought by the defendant, the court found that Ferrero’s box shape is not necessary to obtain a technical result, although it had been previously registered as a patent. In fact, the patent was registered for the closing mechanism, which is not visible on the representation for the trade marks. Lastly, the court also denied that the shape gives substantial value to the goods, as Ferrero’s mints are also sold separately, and it has not been proved that the box influences the purchase experience.

In relation to the likelihood of confusion, the court noted that the only difference claimed by the defendant was the brand on the box. However, the brand (ie Bliki and Tic Tac) was irrelevant in this case, as Ferrero was enforcing its exclusive rights on the box shape rather than on the Tic Tac trade mark (which was not included in the 3D mark registrations). By contrast, the defendant box maintained the same shape and size of the Tic Tac mints.

As a result, the court determined that the Ferrero trade marks were valid and had been infringed. In addition, Mocca’s acts amount to unfair competition. Ferrero was awarded the legal costs of this matter, the payment of a penalty should any box be sold by Mocca after 60 days from the decision and the publication of the decision on a national newspaper. However, Ferrero was not awarded damages as no evidence was filed in this regard.

Implications

In comparison to traditional trade marks, protecting shape marks can be difficult, as their validity is likely to be challenged in the context of an infringement proceeding. Therefore, national registrations may be helpful tools to ensure an effective enforcement strategy. In addition, as shown in this case, trade mark holders should always consider registering shapes without brands or logos to achieve a greater overall protection.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

More on shape and trade marks on the National Law Review Intellectual Property law page.

UKIPO Knocks Undefeated Reds off Their Perch: The Liverpool Trademark and Lessons for Brand Owners

To the interest of many a scouser and football fan alike, Liverpool Football Club’s attempt to register as a UK trademark LIVERPOOL has been rejected by the UKIPO on the grounds that the word is of “geographical significance” to the city. Liverpool FC had filed its application in regards to various goods in relation to football and the filing had attracted significant public attention.

Other English football clubs (Everton, Chelsea and Tottenham) have managed to register several trade marks for each of their respective area names. In addition Southampton Football Club has managed to register SOUTHAMPTON as an EU trade mark. As a result, it is not surprising that Liverpool FC would seek to register a similar mark to help protect its valuable brand.

However, as a result of the filing the club received significant backlash from the people of Liverpool, including their own supporters, and – probably in a related move – Liverpool FC has said that it does not plan to appeal the refusal and it has withdrawn the application. An additional trade mark application for LIVERPOOL with different claims has also been withdrawn.

The matter presents a great case study for brand owners on balancing the need to protect their brand whilst being considerate of the potential adverse PR that will come with the application for certain trade marks.

Innovation in protecting your brand

Brand owners certainly need to adopt innovative tactics when looking to fight counterfeiters and to protect their brand and Liverpool FC has shown a keen eye to identifying new brand assets.

Liverpool FC may have been unsuccessful with this application but they recently successfully applied to trade mark the phrase “LET’S TALK ABOUT SIX BABY” in the UK. The saying was coined by Reds Manager Jürgen Klopp when he ended his run of six successive final defeats and claimed a first trophy as Liverpool FC’s manager with the UEFA Champions League triumph earlier this year. No doubt will form an important part of the club’s merchandise moving forward and is a cunning registration.

Consideration of PR implications

However, all innovative steps in brand protection must be considered in their context.

Liverpool FC argued that the trade mark application was purely “in the context of football products and services” and to stop counterfeiters from benefiting from the sale of counterfeit Liverpool FC products. However, this does raise the question as to why the existing portfolio of club name, mottos and logos would not be sufficient to defeat the majority of inauthentic products that are currently on the market.

In addition, the vitriol with which the application was greeted raises further queries concerning the club’s decision to apply to register the trade mark. The Liverpool FC supporters group ‘Spirit of Shankly’ called the UKIPO’s rejection of the application a “victory for common sense” and declared that the word LIVERPOOL belongs to the “city of Liverpool”. Supporters also took the decision to wear non-official items of clothing carrying the club’s name and logo during a match against Newcastle in protest.

As a result, the case highlights the perils brand owners face when pursuing a robust approach to protecting their brand, particularly when looking to register terms as trade marks with cultural significance. Applicants must bear in mind the negative PR that can accompany any new filing strategy.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Simon Casinader and Niall J. Lavery of K&L Gates.
For more trademark law, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property law page.

A Dark Day for Franchising: Ninth Circuit Reinstates its Misguided Vazquez Decision, Undermining the Franchise Business Model

In the course of a politically-charged frenzy to eliminate the misclassification of employees as independent contractors, the franchise business model has been trampled without respect by both the courts and the legislature in California, disrupting commercial relationships that have been a vital driver of the state’s economy for more than fifty years.  Only five years ago, the California Supreme Court acknowledged the vital importance of franchising to the California economy in generating “trillions of dollars in total sales,” “billions of dollars” of payroll and the “millions of people” franchising employs.  Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 489.

Taking into account the “ubiquitous, lucrative, and thriving” franchise business model and its “profound” effects on the economy, the Patterson court held that the usual tests for “determining the circumstances under which an employment or agency relationship exists” could not be applied to franchises.  Id. at 477, 489 and 503.  To avoid disruption of the franchise relationship and turning the model “on its head,” a different test that took into account the practical realities of franchising had to be applied to franchise relationships.  Id. at 498, 499 and 503.  The “imposition and enforcement of a uniform marketing and operational plan cannot automatically saddle the franchisor with responsibility.”  Id. at 478.  A franchisor is liable “only if it has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee’s employees.”  Id. at 497-98.  The special rule for franchising has been commonly referred to as the “Patterson gloss.”

On September 25, 2019, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court reinstated an opinion it had previously published on May 2, 2019, then withdrew on July 22, 2019, recklessly undermining the delicate framework of the franchise business model in derogation of the California Supreme Court’s “Patterson gloss.”  Vazquez v. Jan-Pro, 923 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. May 2, 2019), opinion withdrawn, 2019 US App. Lexis 21687 (July 22, 2019), opinion reinstated, 2019 BL 357978 (9th Cir. September 24, 2019).

The “Patterson gloss” arose from the California Supreme Court’s subtle appreciation for the historical development of the franchise business model.  At the heart of all franchise relationships is a trademark license.  At common law, trademark licenses were seen as a representation to the public of the source of a product.  An attempt to license a trademark risked the forfeiture of any right to royalties and the abandonment of the licensed mark.  See Lea v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co., 139 F. 732 (C.C.E.D.N.Y. 1905); Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 367 (2d Cir. 1959).

Although the Trademark Act of 1905 did not allow for the licensing of trademarks, the Trademark Act of 1946, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, did allow a trademark to be licensed, but only where the licensee was “controlled by the registrant. . . in respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services in connection with which the mark is used.”  15 U.S.C. § 1127.   After the passage of the Lanham Act, a trademark could be licensed, as long as “the plaintiff sufficiently policed and inspected its licensees’ operations to guarantee the quality of the products they sold under its trademarks to the public.”  Dawn Donut, at 367.  After the Lanham Act had legitimized trademark licensing, the franchise model began to emerge in the 1950s, as the Patterson court noted (at 489), leading to the explosive growth of franchising over the last seven decades.

“Franchising is a heavily regulated form of business in California.”  Cislaw v. Southland Corporation (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1288.  Franchisors must provide prospective franchisees with detailed pre-sale disclosure documents under the California Franchise Investment Law, Corporations Code § 31000 et seq. and the FTC Rule, 39 Fed. Reg. 30360 (1974).  There are criminal, civil and administrative consequences for failure to comply.  Franchisees’ rights are protected by the California Franchise Relations Act, Business & Professions Code § 20000, et seq., which includes recently enhanced penalties for non-compliance.

Over the years, California courts have acknowledged the fundamental obligation of franchisors to impose controls over their licensees and have uniformly held that such controls do not create an employment or agency relationship.  See, e.g., Cislaw, 4 Cal.App.4th at 1295 (the owner of a brand may impose restrictions on a licensee “without incurring the responsibilities or acquiring the immunities of a master, with respect to the person controlled.”); Kaplan v. Coldwell Banker (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 746, (“If the law were otherwise, every franchisee who independently owned and operated a franchise would be the true agent or employee of the franchisor.”).  This doctrine came to be known as the “Patterson gloss” and is the glue that holds the franchise business model together—allowing the franchisor to exert the controls necessary to license a trademark without incurring the responsibilities of an employer.

In its September 25, 2019 decision in Vazquez, the Ninth Circuit once again discarded the Patterson gloss like an extra part found in the bottom of an Ikea box after the hasty assembly of an end table.  According to the Vazquez court, Patterson had no relevance because it was just a vicarious liability decision, not an employment decision.  But Patterson was an employment case.

Patterson was a Fair Employment and Housing claim brought by a teenage girl after her supervisor had repeatedly groped her breasts and buttocks.  Patterson, at 479.  It is hard to understand why the Vazquez court considered the wage order claims before it to be more significant than Taylor Patterson’s right to pursue legal claims for sexual harassment.

Even more disturbingly, the Vazquez court disregarded the “Patterson gloss” because Dynamex [Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903] had favorably cited two Massachusetts decisions that applied the ABC test in the franchise context.  Id. at 39.  The Massachusetts cases were cited in Dynamex only as examples of cases where it had been more efficient to address “the latter two parts of the [ABC] standard” on a dispositive motion, rather than all three prongs.  Dynamex, 4 Cal.5th at 48.  The court never mentions franchising or the inconsequential fact that the parties in cited cases were franchises.  The Dynamex court could not be fairly understood to have abandoned its stalwart embrace of the franchise business model in its 2014 Patterson decision, without ever bothering to mention the case or to make any reference to franchising.  Yet the Vazquez court concluded that a passing citation to cases that happened to involve franchise companies in the Dynamex opinion—to make a procedural point that was unrelated to franchising in any way—was an occult signal from the California Supreme Court that the “Patterson gloss” had been abandoned by implication five years after its creation.

Nor was it valid for the Vazquez court to confine the “Patterson gloss” to vicarious liability cases.  As Witkin points out, California law on vicarious liability and employment developed together, so that most “of the rules relating to duties, authority, liability, etc. are applicable to employees as well as other agents.”  Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed., Agency & Employment, § 4).  The core obligation to control a trademark licensee—hard-wired by the Lanham Act into every franchise relationship—must be respected in both vicarious liability and employment cases if the franchise business model is to be preserved.

The Vazquez court had it right when it withdrew and de-published its original decision on July 22, 2019.  When the court certified the retroactivity issue to the California Supreme Court that day, it could have also certified the franchise issue back to the court that created the Patterson gloss, but it did not do so.  Franchisors are now left to wonder how they are to maintain existing long-term commercial relationships and to continue to sell franchises after the Vazquez opinion has taken from them the fundamental right to license trademarks without incurring the unintended liabilities of employers.

© 2019 Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP

Read more on the topic on the National Law Review Franchising Law page.

WIPO Launches UDRP for .CN and .中国 ccTLD

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) for .CN and .中国 (China) country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD), the first non-Chinese entity to do so. Previously, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Online Dispute Solution Center (CIETAC ODRC) or the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) were authorized by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) to handle domain name disputes for these domains. The .CN and .中国ccTLD is among the largest in the world with over 22 million registered domain names.

The WIPO UDRP for .CN and .中国 ccTLD is only applicable to .CN and .中国domain names that have been registered for less than three years.  In contrast to the conventional UDRP, the Chinese UDRP applies to domain names that are identical or confusingly similar, not only to a mark, but to any “name” in which the complainant has civil rights or interests.

The complainant must prove that either registration or use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, but not both as in the traditional UDRP.  Examples of bath faith provided by WIPO include:

  • The purpose for registering or acquiring the domain name is to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the name or mark or to a competitor of that complainant, and to obtain unjustified benefits;
  • The disputed domain name holder, on many occasions, registers domain Names in order to prevent owners of the names or marks from reflecting the names or the marks in corresponding domain names;
  • The disputed domain name holder has registered or acquired the domain name for the purpose of damaging the Complainant’s reputation, disrupting the Complainant’s normal business or creating confusion with the Complainant’s name or mark so as to mislead the public;
  • Other circumstances which may prove the bad faith.

The language of proceedings will be in Chinese unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the Panel.  More information is available at WIPO’s site.

© 2019 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more on internet IP concerns, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property law page.

Trade Mark Re-filing And Bad Faith – Go Directly To Jail. Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200

Hasbro Inc. (Hasbro), owner of the well-loved board game Monopoly, suffered a defeat on 22 July 2019, before the EUIPO Board of Appeal in relation to the MONOPOLY trade mark. The EU registration for the MONOPOLY trade mark was partially invalidated as it was found that Hasbro had acted in bad faith when filing the application as part of a ‘trade mark re-filing’ programme.

Background

Hasbro applied to register the trade mark MONOPOLY for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41 of the Nice Classification. The application was published on 9 August 2010 and the mark was registered on 25 March 2011. Kreativini Dogadaji d.o.o (KD) filed an application for invalidation of the trademark in 2015, arguing that it had been registered in bad faith on the basis that the mark was a repeat filing of three identical earlier trade mark registrations for MONOPOLY.

Acting in bad faith

The EUTM Regulation states that a trade mark shall be declared invalid where the applicant acted in bad faith at the time of filing the application for the trade mark. However, EU trade mark law does not provide a definitive clarification of bad faith and ‘bad faith’ is not defined in the EUTM Directive or Regulation. The most notable case from the CJEU dealing with bad faith is the Lindt Goldhase-case (C-529/07) which sets out three areas of consideration:

  1. the applicant knows that a third party is using, in at least one member state, an identical/similar sign for an identical/similar product or service for which the registration is sought

  2. the applicant’s intention of preventing that third party from using the sign, and

  3. the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought.

Nonetheless, these factors are only examples and are not exhaustive, ‘bad faith’ cannot be restrained to a limited set of circumstances.

Findings of Board of Appeal

The Board of Appeal found that Hasbro had a dishonest intention at the time of filing the contested EUTM on the basis that Hasbro had previously filed and successfully registered MONOPOLY as an EUTM on three previous occasions. This dishonest intention was found because Hasbro had repeated filings in effect to circumvent the legal risk of removal due to non-use after five years. Although Hasbro claimed it had been adding more goods and services with each subsequent re-filing, the Board of Appeal did not deem it an acceptable excuse. The Board therefore invalidated the MONOPOLY mark for all goods and services identical or similar to those covered by the earlier trade marks.

The Key Takeaways

Hasbro did try to argue that their re-filing tactic was common practice in maintaining ownership of a trade mark, which it is, but the decision highlights that a tactics popularity does not equate to acceptability or legality. Brand owners should carefully consider the risk of invalidation or opposition on the basis of bad faith when filing future trade mark applications for existing brands.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates
ARTICLE BY Niall J. Lavery and Simon Casinader of K&L Gates.
For more trade mark cases, see the Intellectual Property law page on the National Law Review.

Federal Circuit Uphold TTAB Ruling on Specimens of Use

Part of the trademark registration process is submitting a specimen of the mark as used in commerce (“specimen of use”). Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld the decision of a split Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) panel that refused to register the trademark “CASALANA” for “knit pile fabric made with wool for use as a textile in the manufacture of outerwear, gloves, apparel, and accessories,” stating that Siny Corp. (the applicant) did not submit an acceptable specimen of use. See In Re: Siny Corp. (Fed. Cir. Case. No. 18-1077).

Siny Corp. had submitted a specimen where the mark was not shown on images of the goods or on images of the packaging. Also, the Siny Corp. website did not allow direct ordering. Instead, it listed a phone number and e-mail “for sales information.” Nonetheless, Siny Corp. maintained that its website qualified as a display of goods at their point-of-sale because its web-page specimen had the phrasing “for sales information” (i.e., it was a “display associated with the goods” that should be considered a specimen of use sufficient to purchase those goods).

During prosecution the examining attorney disagreed with the reasoning of Siny Corp., stating that the phrasing “for sales information” was not enough to enable customers to make the sale. Rather, it was just a way to obtain more information and lacked details to complete the order – such as cost, quantity, payment and shipping.

The TTAB panel, in reviewing the determination of the examining attorney, found that even though Siny Corp. customers would need the support of sales staff because their goods were industrial materials for use in manufacturing, nearly all details needed to complete a transaction were not present on the website. Thus, the website could not be considered a display for point-of-sale.

On appeal to the CAFC, Siny Corp. maintained that its website specimen established a “display associated with the goods” and argued that the Board used “overly rigid requirements” in determining that the specimen did not qualify as a display associated with the goods.

The CAFC agreed with Siny Corp. about the Board holding of In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009), cautioning against bright-line rules in this context. However, it disagreed with Siny Corp. that the Board in the instant case had used improperly “rigid” requirements stating, in fact, that the TTAB had prudently considered the website specimen’s contents and ruled the specimen does not cross the line from advertising to suitable display associated with the goods.

In hindsight, the website could have been modified a few ways that may have been acceptable: (1) providing pricing information on the site; (2) providing an e-commerce option to purchase; (3) putting the mark on the images of the goods or on images of the packaging rather than just the surrounding website text; and/or (4) changing the general “for sales information” statement to “call to purchase, pricing available on request.” Alternatively, documentary evidence of the sales process may have been acceptable, showing that purchasing consumers saw the website, called the number, and in fact bought the goods. The foregoing are all considerations to keep in mind when presented with issues regarding specimens which claim use in commerce.

 

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates
Article by Stewart Mesher of K&L Gates.

USPTO Issues Examination Guide on Trademark Applications for Cannabis and Cannabis-Related Goods and Services

On May 2, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued Examination Guide 1-19 (“Examination Guide”), which outlines the path to registration for trademark applications covering hemp-based goods and services.  The issuance of the Examination Guide serves as a departure from the USPTO’s longstanding bar to the registration of cannabis-related marks, and signals the potential for further relaxation of the USPTO’s prohibition on federal registration of trademarks and service marks for cannabis and cannabis-related goods and services as state legalization of cannabis continues to crop up across the country.

To obtain federal registration for a mark, a mark’s use in commerce must be lawful under federal law.  See generally Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure §907.  The USPTO will not issue registrations for marks covering goods or services that violate federal law – even if such goods or services are legal at the state level.  Despite the legalization of cannabis for medical use in 33 states and the legalization of cannabis for recreational use in 10 states, cannabis has been deemed illegal by the federal government under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”)1.  Cannabis-related marks have therefore been ineligible for federal trademark registration.

On December 20, 2018, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, better known as the 2018 Farm Bill, was signed into law.  In relevant part, the 2018 Farm Bill removed “hemp”2from the CSA’s definition of marijuana, thus removing “hemp” from the list of controlled substances under the CSA and creating an avenue for federal registration of marks covering some goods and services derived from hemp.  Now, marks covering certain hemp-derived goods and services with less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”)3 may be eligible for federal registration.  However, the USPTO will continue to refuse registration when the identified goods or services in an application involve cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana and encompass activities still prohibited under the CSA.

To assist in the prosecution of trademark applications for these newly registerable goods and services, the USPTO outlined the requirements an application must meet before it may be eligible for registration for hemp-derived goods and related services.  First, the USPTO advises that only applications covering hemp-derived goods and services with less than 0.3% THC are registerable.  Second, an application’s identification of goods for all goods derived from hemp must explicitly state that the hemp-derived goods contain less than 0.3% THC.  Third, only applications for marks covering hemp-based products and related services filed after December 20, 2018, are eligible for federal registration.  Any applications filed prior to December 20, 2018, must be amended or refiled.4.  Specifically, applicants must request the USPTO amend their filing date to December 20, 2018, or withdraw their application and submit a new one.   Notably, the USPTO will also examine applications to register service marks for compliance with the CSA and the 2018 Farm Bill; and, as such, an application’s identification of services must also specify that the involved cannabis contains less than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis.  Moreover, there are additional requirements for applications that include services involving the cultivation or production of hemp.

Restrictions still remain on the registrability of marks for hemp and hemp-derived goods.  For example, applications to register marks covering hemp-derived foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats will still be refused as unlawful because the use of hemp in items for human or animal consumption has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)5.

While Examination Guide 1-19 signals the budding federal registrability of marks for certain hemp-derived goods and services, applicants should consider the stringent requirements placed on the same.  Mark owners should think critically about whether their trademarks for cannabis and cannabis-related products and services are potentially eligible for federal protection, as we expect to see a significant influx of applications covering these types of offerings in the near future.  Filing applications for eligible products and services now may help mark owners gain a foothold in what will likely be a competitive business field going forward.

1 Under the Controlled Substances Act the drug class “Marihuana” (also referred to as “cannabis” or “marijuana”) is defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.”  21 U.S.C. §802(16).  Cannabidiol (“CBD”), a chemical constituent of the marijuana plant is included in the Controlled Substances Act’s definition of “Marihuana.”  See id.

2 Hemp is defined as “the plant Cannabis sativa L., and any other part of that plant, including the seeds thereof an all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis.”  Agricultural Improvement Act §297A

3 THC is the main psychoactive ingredient of cannabis.

4 The USPTO takes the position that any applications filed before December 20, 2018 lacked a valid basis to support registration at the time of filing because the applied-for goods violated federal law.  See Examination Guide 1-19: Examination of Marks for Cannabis and Cannabis Related Goods and Services after Enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill.

5 The 2018 Farm Bill specifies that the FDA retains its authority to regulate goods containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds, and the FDA has taken the position that cannabis-infused items for human or animal consumption require the FDA’s approval before they may be sold to consumers. The FDA is conducting clinical investigations into the safety and efficacy of such products for human and animal consumption.

© 2019 Brinks Gilson Lione. All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Virginia Wolk Marino and Emily Kappers of  Brinks Gilson & Lione
Read more USPTO & Trademark news on the National Law Review Intellectual Property page