Trademarks Archives - The National Law Forum

AI-Generated Content and Trademarks

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence has undeniably transformed the digital landscape, with AI-generated content becoming increasingly common. This shift has profound implications for brand owners introducing both challenges and opportunities.

One of the most pressing concerns is trademark infringement. In a recent example, the Walt Disney Company, a company fiercely protective of its intellectual property, raised concerns about AI-generated content potentially infringing on its trademarks. Social media users were having fun using Microsoft’s Bing AI imaging tool, powered by DALL-E 3 technology, to create images of pets in a “Pixar” style. However, Disney’s concern wasn’t the artwork itself, but the possibility of the AI inadvertently generating the iconic Disney-Pixar logo within the images, constituting a trademark infringement. This incident highlights the potential for AI-generated content to unintentionally infringe upon established trademarks, requiring brand owners to stay vigilant in protecting their intellectual property in the digital age.

Dilution of trademarks is another critical issue. A recent lawsuit filed by Getty Images against Stability AI sheds light on this concern. Getty Images, a leading provider of stock photos, accused Stability AI of using millions of its copyrighted images to train its AI image generation software. This alleged use, according to Getty Images, involved Stability AI’s incorporation of Getty Images’ marks into low-quality, unappealing, or offensive images which dilutes those marks in further violation of federal and state trademark laws. The lawsuit highlights the potential for AI, through the sheer volume of content it generates, to blur the lines between inspiration and infringement, weakening the association between a trademark and its source.

In addition, the ownership of copyrights in AI-generated marketing can cause problems. While AI tools can create impressive content, questions about who owns the intellectual property rights persist. Recent disputes over AI-generated artwork and music have highlighted the challenges of determining ownership and copyright in this new digital frontier.

However, AI also presents opportunities for trademark owners. For example, AI can be employed to monitor online platforms for trademark infringements, providing an early warning system. Luxury brands have used AI to authenticate products and combat counterfeiting. For instance, Entrupy has developed a mobile device-based authentication system that uses AI and microscopy to analyze materials and detect subtle irregularities indicative of counterfeit products. Brands can integrate Entrupy’s technology into their retail stores or customer-facing apps.

Additionally, AI can be a powerful tool for brand building. By analyzing consumer data and preferences, AI can help create highly targeted marketing campaigns. For example, cosmetic brands have successfully leveraged AI to personalize product recommendations, enhancing customer engagement and loyalty.

The intersection of AI and trademarks is a dynamic and evolving landscape. As technology continues to advance, so too will the challenges and opportunities for trademark owners. Proactive measures, such as robust trademark portfolios, AI-powered monitoring tools, and clear internal guidelines, are essential for safeguarding brand integrity in this new era.

Relying on Noncompete Clauses May Not Be the Best Defense of Proprietary Data When Employees Depart

Much of the value of many companies often is wrapped up with and measured by their intellectual property (IP) portfolios. Some forms of IP, such as patents, are known by the public. Others derive their value from being hidden from the public. Many companies, for example, have gigabytes of data or “know-how” that may be worth millions, but only to the extent that they remain secret. This article discusses some ways to keep business information confidential when an employee who has had access to that information leaves the company.

Many companies traditionally turned to employment agreements, specifically noncompete clauses, to protect proprietary competitive information. The legality of noncompetes is in question following the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) ban on them, which is being challenged in court by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, causing confusion and concerns about protecting information via noncompete agreements. As covered in Wilson Elser’s prior articles* on this subject, the timeline of the FTC rule in question was as follows:

The FTC promulgated new rules to take effect in September 2024 banning all noncompete agreements.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 40-year-old method of reviewing agency rules (Chevron Deference), throwing all agency rules, including the FTC’s rule on noncompetes, into question.
The District Court for the Northern District of Texas preliminarily enjoined the FTC from enforcing its new rule banning noncompetes.

After this flurry of activity, noncompetes are, for now, not banned. But do they offer an effective solution for businesses seeking to protect their proprietary information?

Noncompete Clauses Are Not Always Effective
Vortexa, Inc. v. Cacioppo, a June 2024 case from the District Court for the Southern District of New York, illustrates the limitations of noncompete clauses in employment agreements. That case presents the familiar fact pattern of an employee leaving and going to work for a competitor. With some evidence of the employee’s access to proprietary competitive information in hand (but no evidence of actual misappropriation), the former employer sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the employee from working for the competitor for one year, the term stated in the noncompete clause in the employee’s contract with the former employer. The contract also included common non-disclosure and confidentiality clauses.

Absent evidence of actual misappropriation, the plaintiff employer relied on the “Inevitable Disclosure” doctrine, which assumes that a departing employee will inevitably disclose confidential information when they go work for a competitor. The court refused to apply this doctrine, explaining that inevitable disclosure may substitute for actual evidence of misappropriation only when the information is a trade secret. Here, none of the information about which the former employer was concerned was a trade secret.

The proprietary information that the former employee had was pricing data, marketing strategies and “intricacies of the business.” These types of information do not, in and of themselves, constitute trade secrets. In addition, the information was not afforded trade secret treatment because (1) some of it was ascertainable by the competitor without reference to the first employer’s information; (2) the companies sell different products; (3) some of the information was developed without the expenditure of a good deal of money and effort; (4) some of the information was provided to clients without a non-disclosure agreement; (5) some of the information was shared on company-wide collaboration channels; and (6) “google drive log records show that [the former employee] opened and viewed these documents, which underlines the lack of security protecting this purportedly confidential information.”

Most of these reasons for the information not being accorded trade secret status cannot be changed by any action of the employer. For example, if information can be generated by means independent of the first employer, that information cannot be protected by trade secret law and nothing the first employer can do will change that after the fact. However, any business seeking to protect its valuable competitive information can change the way that it secures, protects and manages access to its competitive information, and this may be enough to ensure that its information is protected by trade secret law.

What Businesses Should Do to Protect Their Proprietary Competitive Information
Generally, proprietary competitive information can be protected as a trade secret by operation of law or via contract. In many cases, the “boots and suspenders” approach is best – the information should be protected both by contract and by meeting the requirements for protection under trade secret law. As described, a contract alone is sometimes ineffective, so information that derives its value from not being generally known to the public should also be treated in such a manner that the courts would see it as being a trade secret.

Specifically, for something to qualify for trade secret protection under federal and state statues and common law, it must be securely kept and carefully protected from disclosure. Some easy ways to protect information are to (1) restrict access to folders on a company’s internal computer systems, (2) physically lock rooms that contain hard copies and (3) have computers lock automatically when not accessed for set time periods. Protecting information via noncompete, confidentiality and non-disclosure contractual obligations is another way to ensure that information remains secret, such that it is protected under trade secret law. Internal policies on how information may be shared with third parties, such as clients, also are helpful evidence of trade secret treatment. In addition, the business may consider maintaining records on the time, effort and monetary expenditures required to develop proprietary information, which should allow the business to demonstrate that making such information freely available to a competitor is fundamentally unfair.

In some cases, information protected as a trade secret may be the most valuable IP that a company owns. But the value can easily be lost if the company does not properly secure the information. Different scenarios call for different methods of security, and a good rule of thumb to protect information from disclosure by a departing employee is to protect this information both by contract and as a trade secret.

The first step for any business is to think through their overall data protection strategy and consult with experienced intellectual property counsel to put appropriate protections in place.

Trademark Insights: What the First Precedential TTAB Expungement Decision Means for You

As a trademark applicant, encountering a prior registration that obstructs your path to registration is never a pleasant experience (nor for your attorneys who have to inform you about it). The frustration only intensifies when it becomes evident that the registered mark has never been used for the specified goods or services. Until 2021, the sole recourse with the USPTO to address this issue was filing a Petition to Cancel, with the hope that the registrant would not respond, leading to a swift default judgment. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and a response means expending an appreciable amount of time and money before resolution can be obtained, often through a settlement agreement.

In late 2021, the landscape changed with the passing of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, which brought about two new ex parte proceedings: reexamination and expungement. The goal was to provide faster, more efficient, and less expensive alternatives to contested cancellation proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”).

Expungement proceedings, in particular, offer a means to cancel trademarks that have never been used in commerce. “Any party can request cancellation [by the USPTO Director] of some or all of the goods or services in a registration because the registrant never used the trademark in commerce with those goods or services.” This action is available against all types of registrations, but must be requested between three and ten years after the registration date.

Now, after two-and-a-half years of these proceedings, on July 1, 2024, the Board issued its first precedential decision in an expungement proceeding: In Re Locus Link USA.

In July 2022, a third party filed expungement actions against Locus Link USA’s (the “Registrant”) two SMARTLOCK registrations, alleging nonuse of the marks for the specified goods: “components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers.” The USPTO Director found sufficient evidence of nonuse and proposed cancellation. The registrant responded with evidence of use in the form of specimens showing connectors for metal tubing and air condition components, arguing that this evidence was sufficient, and had been previously accepted by the USPTO during examination. The USPTO maintained the cancellation, noting that the subject registrations only covered the specific goods following the term “namely” in the identification, here “evaporative air coolers.”

On appeal, the Registrant argued that the SMARTLOCK marks are in use in connection with the goods identified in the registration because the identification of goods covers components for evaporative air coolers. The Board disagreed and affirmed the USPTO’s decision.

Goods and services in an application should “state common names for goods or services, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid indefinite words and phrases.” TMEP § 1402.03(a), cited in In re Solid State Design Inc., Ser. No. 87269041, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *18 (TTAB 2018).

Applicants take notice: “the goods or services listed after the term ‘namely’ must further define the introductory wording that proceeds ‘namely’ using definite terms within the scope of the introductory words.” In other words, the goods or services that come after “namely” must specifically define the broader category mentioned before. Essentially, “namely” helps to clarify otherwise vague descriptions.

In this case, the broad category is “components for air conditioning and cooling systems.” The applications were only accepted for registration because they specified “namely, evaporative air coolers.” This means the SMARTLOCK marks cover evaporative air coolers that are components for air cooling systems. It does not cover component parts that go into making evaporative air coolers.

Key Takeaways

Grammar Matters. Properly identifying goods and services in an application is vital. The USPTO continues to increase its specificity requirements for identifying goods and services, and applicants need to ensure not only original identifications, but also amendments to identifications proposed by an examiner accurately and correct reflect their goods and services. In Locus Link, was the Board, splitting hairs? Maybe, but the lesson is critically important for obtaining and maintaining trademark registrations.
Specimen Acceptance Isn’t Conclusive. The acceptance of specimens by the USPTO does not control the ultimate question of use. Although not a new concept, one to keep in mind. It is more important to have multiple records of proper and consistent trademark use than to rely on a single specimen. It is wise to retain an attorney with experienced eyes to review your use specimens prior to filing for both registration and for maintenance of your registrations.
File for New Marks as Necessary. While the SMARTLOCK marks were never in use for the goods, nonuse or lack of coverage can happen. Businesses expand and evolve over the years and so too should the portfolio of trademark registrations. It is important to occasionally audit your trademark portfolio to look for any gaps in coverage for certain marks and certain goods and services. Do not just think you have proper coverage, be sure so you are in the best offensive and defensive position possible for your brand. You never know who else is out there, looking to use your mark. If your registrations are in not order, your marks are vulnerable.

It is still early days for these new ex parte proceedings, but the hope is that they will prove a useful tool moving forward. This precedential decision although not groundbreaking does provide a good overview of the relatively new expungement proceeding and some good reminders for trademark owners.

Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Register Trademark Containing the Name of Living Individual – Donald Trump

In a recent unanimous decision in the case Vidal v. Elster (602 U.S. ___ (2024)), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the refusal to register a federal trademark for the phrase “Trump Too Small” based on the fact that the Lanham Act prohibits the registration of the name of a living individual without their consent. The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Elster, filed a federal trademark application in 2018 for the mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for use on clothing as shown below, without the prior consent of former President Trump, arguing that the phrase was intended to be a criticism of Donald Trump and his policies and that the refusal was a violation of Mr. Elster’s First Amendment right of free speech. Mr. Elster claimed he wanted to register the mark to convey a political message about the former president.

The Supreme Court reviewed the matter based on the initial refusal to register issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office, which was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who overturned the refusal holding that barring registration of “Trump Too Small” under a provision of federal trademark law unconstitutionally restricted free speech. The Court’s ruling upholds the “living-individual rule” established under the Lanham Act which requires the consent of the living individual prior to registration. Specifically, “No trademark … shall be refused registration … on account of its nature unless it…[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent….” 15 U.S.C. §1052(c). Proponents of the law, including the International Trademark Association, argue that this provision of trademark law is consistent with the concepts of the right of publicity and privacy, and assists in preventing the unauthorized use of individuals’ names in commercial contexts. In explaining the rationale for the decision, Justice Thomas wrote: “This Court has long recognized that a trademark protects the markholder’s reputation, and the connection is even stronger when the mark contains a person’s name,” and further stated, “This history and tradition is sufficient to conclude that the names clause — a content-based, but viewpoint-neutral, trademark restriction — is compatible with the First Amendment.”

It is worth noting the Court’s decision does not affect the ability of Mr. Elster to offer goods or services under any particular name or brand – in fact, Mr. Elster’s T-shirts bearing the phrase “Trump Too Small” are still available online for $24.99, even though his trademark application was refused. But the ruling does uphold the prohibition of seeking and obtaining federal trademark protection where the mark contains the name of a living individual without their consent. This ruling from the Supreme Court joins a string of other First Amendment challenges to provisions of the Lanham Act, the main statute governing trademarks. The high court in 2017 struck down a section of the law that barred registration of disparaging marks and did the same for a provision prohibiting immoral or scandalous marks in 2019.

The key takeaway from this narrowly tailored decision is that, prior to seeking federal trademark protection for a mark containing the name of a living individual, consent from that individual must be obtained. In the context of protecting a name or brand focused on a living individual, or in the continuation of such use post-merger or other transaction, it is important to ensure that the consent of the living individual is secured in some manner.

How to Recover Attorneys’ Fees in a Schedule A Trademark Case in the Northern District of Illinois

In recent years, a substantial number of “Schedule A” trademark infringement cases have been filed in the Northern District of Illinois. In such a case, the trademark owner may file a trademark infringement complaint against a number of defendants, with the complaint identifying the defendants as “The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto.” [See, e.g., Opulent Complaint]

The trademark owner may file Schedule A separately from the complaint with a request to the Court that the schedule be placed under seal. Sometimes, trademark owners file the entire complaint under seal. After filing sealed pleadings that shield the defendants’ identities, the trademark owner may then file ex parte motions for temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) against the secretly-named defendants. Because the proceedings are ex parte, the alleged infringer is not given notice of the proceedings or an opportunity to appear. If the Court grants the TRO, the trademark owner may then present the TRO to online marketplaces with a demand that the marketplaces immediately stop selling the allegedly infringing goods. The result may be that an alleged infringer may find all of its activity frozen by the online marketplace, including a freeze on the alleged infringer’s cash held with the online marketplace. This may create cashflow problems for the alleged infringer and prevent the alleged infringer from making future sales. Because its identity is sealed by the court, an alleged infringer may first learn of the TRO after its accounts are frozen.

Schedule A cases appear to be concentrated in the Northern District of Illinois because judges in that district have been receptive to granting ex parte relief. See, A. Anteau, “The Northern District of Illinois v. the Internet: How Chicago Became the Center of Schedule A Trademark Infringement Litigation”; Law.Com, December 19, 2023. At least two judges in that district even provide templates for TROs, preliminary injunctions and default judgments in Schedule A cases. See Northern District of Illinois (uscourts.gov); Northern District of Illinois (uscourts.gov). The justification for the ex parte nature of these proceedings is that it, if notice was required, online counterfeiters (frequently from China) could hide their assets or move their counterfeit products to new sites as soon as an infringement case was filed.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, remedies and relief do exist if an entity is the subject of a wrongfully obtained ex parte TRO. Recently, Ya Ya Creations, a defendant in a Schedule A trademark case, obtained an attorneys’ fees award against a plaintiff that failed to conduct a proper investigation before naming two Ya Ya-affiliated entities as alleged infringers in a case filed in the Northern District of Illinois. [Award of Fees] The dispute began in August 2021, when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Ya Ya for trademark infringement and a variety of other causes of action in the Eastern District of Texas. The Texas court transferred the case to the Central District of California in April of 2022. Four months after the transfer, the plaintiff filed a very similar lawsuit against Ya Ya in the Middle District of Florida. On May 26, 2023, the Florida court transferred the case to the Central District of California, and then the CD California consolidated the cases due to the similarity of the facts and claims. On September 26, 2023, the plaintiff filed yet another lawsuit. This time, the plaintiff filed a Schedule A trademark infringement case against a number of defendants in the Northern District of Illinois. In the Schedule A case, the plaintiff named two entities affiliated with Ya Ya as alleged infringers.

Notwithstanding the litigation history between the parties, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte TRO against Ya Ya in the Northern District of Illinois. Ya Ya first learned about the TRO after the court issued it and after an online marketplace froze Ya Ya’s accounts.

Ya Ya’s first step in seeking redress was to file an emergency motion asking the court to dissolve the ex parte TRO. [Ya Ya Motion to Dissolve TRO] Ya Ya argued that, because the parties were actively litigating against each other in California, the plaintiff had no basis to seek ex parte relief against Ya Ya or its affiliated entities without notifying Ya Ya of the proceedings. Ya Ya also argued that the plaintiff’s ex parte TRO was a transparent attempt to gain a litigation advantage in the California cases to either leverage a settlement, force Ya Ya into a position where it could not even pay its lawyers to mount a defense, or force Ya Ya to file for bankruptcy. In response to Ya Ya’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss all of its claims against the Ya Ya-affiliated entities.

Ya Ya’s next step was to file a motion for recovery of the attorneys’ fees it expended in the Northern District of Illinois proceedings. [Ya Ya Request for Reimbursement of Attorneys’ Fees]. In response, the plaintiff argued that it was not obligated to pay Ya Ya’s attorneys’ fees, because it did not know the entities it named in the Northern District of Illinois lawsuit were affiliated with Ya Ya. But the court rejected that argument. The court concluded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, a court may award attorneys’ fees incurred while defending an ex parte TRO when (1) the TRO caused “needless delay” and unnecessarily “increased the cost of litigation,” or (2) the TRO was obtained by pleadings that were not “well grounded in fact” or made after “reasonable inquiry.” The Court determined that plaintiff could have avoided increasing the costs of litigation if it had conducted a reasonable inquiry to determine if the two entities were affiliated with Ya Ya, but it failed to do so. As a result, the Court awarded Plaintiff to pay Ya-Ya almost $100,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Trademark litigators should be aware that judges in the Northern District of Illinois have been receptive to granting ex parte TROs in trademark cases. If you represent a client that is the subject of an improperly granted ex parte TRO, be prepared to move quickly to dissolve the TRO and consider whether you have a basis to move for an award of attorneys’ fees.

For All Patent/Trademark Practitioners: USPTO Provides Guidance for Use of AI in Preparing USPTO Submissions

The USPTO expounds a clear message for patent and trademark attorneys, patent agents, and inventors: use of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI, in patent and trademark activities and filings before the USPTO entails risks to be mitigated, and you must disclose use of AI in creation of an invention or practice before the USPTO if the use of AI is material to patentability.

The USPTO’s new guidance issued on April 11, 2024 is a counterpart to its guidance issued on February 13, 2024, which addresses AI-assisted invention creation process. In the new guidance issued on April 11, 2024, USPTO officials communicate the risks of using AI in preparing USPTO submissions, including patent applications, affidavits, petitions, office action responses, information disclosure statements, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) submissions, and trademark / Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) submissions. The common theme between the February 13 and April 11 guidance is the duty to disclose to the USPTO all information known to be material to patentability.

Building on the USPTO’s existing rules and policies, the USPTO’s April 11 guidance discusses the following:

(A) The duty of candor and good faith – each individual associated with a proceeding at the USPTO owes the duty to disclose the USPTO all information known to be material to patentability, including on the use of AI by inventors, parties, and practitioners.

(B) Signature requirement and corresponding certifications – using AI to draft documents without verifying information risks “critical misstatements and omissions”. Any submission for the USPTO in which AI helped prepare must be carefully reviewed by practitioners, who are ultimately responsible, to ensure that they are true and submitted for a proper purpose.

(C) Confidentiality of information – sensitive and confidential client information risks being compromised if shared to third-party AI systems, some of which may be located outside of the United States.

(D) Foreign filing licenses and export regulations – a foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States. Practitioners must ensure data is not improperly exported when using AI.

(E) USPTO electronic systems’ policies – Practitioners using AI must be mindful of the terms and conditions for the USPTO’s electronic system, which prohibit the unauthorized access, actions, use, modifications, or disclosure of the data contained in the USPTO system in transit to/from the system.

(F) The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct – when using the AI tools, practitioners must ensure that they are not violating the duties owed to clients. For example, practitioners must have the requisite legal, scientific, and technical knowledge to reasonably represent the client, without inappropriate reliance on AI. Practitioners also have duty to reasonably consult with the client, including about the use of AI in accomplishing the client’s objectives.

The USPTO’s April 11 guidance overall shares principles with the ethics guidelines that multiple state bars have issued related to generative AI use in practice of law, and addresses them in the patent- and trademark-specific context. Importantly, in addition to ethics considerations, the USPTO guidance reminds us that knowing or willful withholding of information about AI use under (A), overlooking AI’s misstatements leading to false certification under (B), or AI-mediated improper or unauthorized exporting of data or unauthorized access to data under (D) and (E) may lead to criminal or civil liability under federal law or penalties or sanctions by the USPTO.

On the positive side, the USPTO guidance describes the possible favorable aspects of AI “to expand access to our innovation ecosystem and lower costs for parties and practitioners…. The USPTO continues to be actively involved in the development of domestic and international measures to address AI considerations at the intersection of innovation, creativity, and intellectual property.” We expect more USPTO AI guidance to be forthcoming, so please do watch for continued updates in this area.

Design Patent vs. Trade Dress: Strategic Considerations for Protecting Product Designs

Product designs often serve as the cornerstone of a brand’s identity, evoking instant recognition and loyalty among consumers. From the iconic silhouette of Coca-Cola’s glass bottle to the distinctive shape of Gibson guitars, the visual appeal of product designs can be a critical asset in the competitive marketplace. However, protecting a product design requires careful consideration and strategic planning. Two forms of IP protection are the most common – design patents and trade dress.

1. Design Patents

Design patents offer a streamlined and cost-effective means of protecting the ornamental appearance of product designs. The allowance rate is extremely high – over 95% – and is usually complete within 18 months. The result is that a design patent is significantly easier and less expensive to obtain as compared to conventional utility patents. This might explain the growing popularity of design patents for protecting product designs across various industries.

Design Patents Filed by Industry¹

Enforcing design patents can sometimes be more streamlined as compared to utility patents. For example, a design patent can be quickly enforced on the Amazon Brand Registry and other e-commerce platforms against copycat products sold on the platform. While Amazon does offer a procedure for utility patent enforcement, it tends to be more expensive and unpredictable.

However, design patents are not always an option. For example, a design patent can protect a functional article, but the protection only applies to the ornamental appearance of that article. So, a design patent on Crocs footwear does not protect the overall idea of a ventilated shoe. Instead, the protection only extends to the overall ornamental appearance of the shoe. And this protection only lasts for 15 years after the patent issues.

A design patent risks being overly narrow if its drawings contain too many solid lines. To counter this, a common practice involves converting unnecessary solid lines into dashed lines to broaden the patent’s scope and enhance its exclusionary effect. An example is below – the dashed lines do not narrow the design and are only provided to show the environment in which the design exists.

Is the End of Crocs Really Upon Us? Not So Fast. - The Fashion Law

Figure from Crocs Design Patent – U.S. Design Patent No. D517,789

2. Trade Dress

Trade dress is a form of trademark that protects the commercial look and feel of a product. Like all trademarks, trade dress indicates or identifies the source of the product and protects against consumer confusion in the marketplace. A classic example is the Coca-Cola bottle and how its shape and design immediately connect a consumer to the Coca-Cola brand:

A black and white drawing of a bottle Description automatically generated

Coca-Cola Bottle Trade Dress – U.S. Registration No. 696,147

Trade dress protection offers several advantages. It can sometimes be considered broader than a design patent because it attaches to any confusingly similar design. Additionally, trade dress protection is not limited to a 15-year term, like a design patent, and can continue for as long as the trade dress is used commercially in the marketplace.

So why not protect every product design as trade dress? First, product trade dress is not protectable unless it has “acquired distinctiveness” in the minds of consumers.
The Coca-Cola bottle serves as an example; its distinctive shape immediately invokes consumer association with the brand, demonstrating its acquired distinctiveness. However, proving acquired distinctiveness can be difficult and usually requires consumer survey evidence or other more costly endeavors. As a result, trade dress protection is less common than design patent protection for product designs.

Second, trade dress protection does not extend to any functional aspect of the product. The functionality requirement of trade dress protection is stricter than that of design patents – anything that is “essential to the use or purpose of the product or [that] affects the cost or quality of the product”² cannot be protected as trade dress. Many product designs include functions that cannot be separated from their branded “look and feel” and this disqualifies the design from trade dress protection.

Determining the optimal form of protection for a product design hinges on the specific attributes of the design and its commercial significance to the company. Navigating the path to protection demands meticulous attention to crafting intellectual property rights that are expansive yet defensible.

Footnotes

[1] This chart reflects the top ten owners of design patents over the past five years.

[2] Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.,456 U.S. 844 (1982).

For more news on product design protections, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

Breaking News – Hermès Makes History With First NFT Trademark Trial Victory

A New York City jury just returned a verdict in favor of Hermès in a historic dispute between the luxury fashion house and digital artist Mason Rothschild over Hermès’ alleged trademark rights relating to Hermès’ famous Birkin handbag. The jury awarded Hermès $133,000 in total damages for trademark infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting.

The jury finding that the First Amendment did not shield Rothschild from liability in connection with his MetaBirkins NFTs project is significant, particularly as this matter involved the first trial by jury to consider the interplay of free speech and trademark protection in the context of NFTs. This decision, which may be appealed, provides guidance for artists, brands, and others seeking ingress into metaverse, including to what extent “real world” intellectual property rights apply to and may be enforced in virtual worlds.

***Haute*-ly Contested NFTs**

Throughout the dispute over this past year, the parties have contested each other’s characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs. To Hermès, the MetaBirkins NFTs are merely the instruments of a “digital speculator” looking to exploit one of its most exclusive assets via NFTs. In contrast, Rothschild argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs project, a series of 100 NFT images that depict a range of reimagined Hermès Birkin bags featuring a variety of colorful fur, is digital art and a commentary on the famed BIRKIN bag, consumerism, and animal cruelty within the fashion industry. As a result, he argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs are artistic works that should be shielded from liability under the free speech principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The nine-member jury disagreed, finding that the MetaBirkins NFTs were more like commodities that are subject to trademark and other laws, rather than artwork. A factor that may have influenced the jury’s decision was evidence suggesting that Rothschild may have seen the MetaBirkins NFTs as a “cash cow.” This may have cast doubt on the authenticity of his characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs as an art project.

The Test is Yet to Come

Although the jury found the MetaBirkins NFTs to be infringing, the final disposition of this dispute remains pending with the possibility of appeal. Given the importance of the issues at stake, the outcome of this case is bound to be subject to debate regardless of any appeal.

Moreover, while no NFT-specific legal test appears to have emerged from this case and the legal landscape for IP in the Metaverse (and beyond) continues to lack clear guidance, this case has nonetheless provided insight on how courts (and juries) may view the interplay of IP and NFTs. The ultimate outcome of this landmark case is likely to form the basis of the emerging law involving IP rights and NFTs.

For more Intellectual Property Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

Bad Faith Games – Hasbro Rolls and Loses

For EU and UK trademarks, there is a five-year grace period following the issuance of a registration, during which the trademark owner must use the mark in connection with the goods and/or services covered by the registration before it can be challenged (and potentially ultimately revoked) for non-use with such goods and/or services. Some trademark owners have tried to take advantage of this by re-filing their previously registered trademarks for exactly the same goods and/or services just before the five-year grace period ends as a means of extending this grace period. This is commonly referred to as “evergreening.”

In Hasbro v EUIPO¹, the General Court has upheld the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision that repeat filing of trademarks can result in bad faith applications. While it is true that evergreening doesn’t always mean bad faith, where it can be demonstrated that an applicant’s intention for filing a trademark application is to dodge showing genuine use of a mark more than five years old, then bad faith may be established.

Bad faith?

In legal terms, “bad faith” goes back in time and considers a trademark owner’s intention at the time it applied for the trademark. If the intention was to weaken the interests of third parties or obtain a trademark registration for reasons that are unrelated to the trademark itself, then this might result in bad faith. In Hasbro, the question of whether the board game conglomerate acted in bad faith hinged on whether Hasbro’s repeat filings of the MONOPOLY trademark, to avoid showing genuine use of the mark, amounted to bad faith.

Hasbro v EUIPO

When Hasbro filed its MONOPOLY trademark yet again, specifying goods and services near-identical to its earlier filing, the General Court said the application was made in bad faith, as Hasbro’s intention was to prolong the five-year grace period allowed for establishing use.

Although the case was initially rejected by the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, the EUIPO Board of Appeal partially invalidated Hasbro’s EU Registration for the MONOPOLY mark. A key factor of the General Court’s decision supporting the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s verdict was Hasbro’s admission that its motivation for re-filing was to avoid potential costs that would be incurred to show genuine use of the MONOPOLY trademark.

Impact

The Hasbro case is setting precedent in both the European and UK courts. Although the Hasbro case came along post-Brexit, it is still considered “good law” in the English courts.

In a recent dispute between the two supermarket chains Tesco and Lidl², Tesco argued that Lidl’s wordless version of its logo should be invalidated, as the mark had never been used and Lidl was periodically re-filing it to avoid having to prove genuine use. Tesco’s counterclaim was struck out in the High Court as Tesco had not made a clear-cut case for bad faith. However, the Court of Appeal allowed Tesco’s appeal and maintained that it was possible bad faith had occurred. This forced Lidl to explain its intentions when filing the mark, which is consistent with the Hasbro case. Tesco’s bad faith allegation will now be assessed at the substantive trial later this year. This will be watched closely by brand-owners and practitioners hoping for further guidance on evergreening and specifically where re-filings amount to bad faith.

In Sky v SkyKick³, the Court of Appeal said that a trademark applicant can have both good and bad reasons for applying to register trademarks. However, trademark filings that are submitted underhandedly, particularly where dishonesty is the main objective of filing the application in the first place, should be invalidated.

Bad faith beware!

The Hasbro v EUIPO decision has resulted in brand owners and trademark lawyers taking greater care when re-filing trademarks. It is important to highlight though, that re-filing a trademark is allowed. It is only when it can be established that an applicant’s intention at the point of re-filing the mark was to skirt use requirements, that bad faith can be found.

Brands looking to file new, or re-file existing, trademarks, should ensure they have a clear trademark strategy. Also consider retaining and recording: (1) evidence of genuine use of your marks; and (2) your reasons for re-filing any existing trademarks.

1 21/04/2021, Case T‑663/19, ECLI:EU:T:2021:211 (Hasbro, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office)

2 Lidl Great Britain Limited v Tesco Stores Limited [2022] EWHC 1434 (Ch)

3 Sky Limited (formerly Sky Plc), Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v SkyKick, UK Ltd, SkyKick, Inc [2021] EWCA Civ 1121, 2021 WL 03131604

Article By Sarah Simpson and Tegan Miller-McCormack of Katten. To read Kattison Avenue/Katten Kattwalk | Issue 2, please click here.

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Legal Standing in Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Actions

In recent years the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (IMPI) allowed the possibility that complainants credit their legal standing on trademark non-use cancellation proceedings through the existence of a trademark application without the need of initially demonstrating that such application was blocked to registration in view of the prior existence of third parties’ confusingly similar registered marks, as long as the official action citing the conflicting registration as pertinent barrier was submitted as subsequent evidence in the proceeding.

Accordingly, it started to be a common practice to file non-use cancellation actions submitting as evidence a certified copy of the trademark application serving as a basis to attack the registration not being used accompanied with the results of an availability search showing the existence of the registration subject to the proceeding.

Nonetheless, such criteria adopted by IMPI was revoked by the Federal Court of Administrative Affairs and by Federal Circuit Courts sustaining that legal standing must be credited initially along with the complaint without being possible to do it at a later stage by submitting the evidence attesting that IMPI objected the registration of complainant’s trademark application on grounds of likelihood of confusion because of the existence of defendant’s registration.

The Court’s reasonings behind the revocation of such criteria were mainly based on legal certainty arguments stating that legal standing can only born when a formal objection is raised by IMPI communicating to the applicant the existence of a citation based on likelihood of confusion.

Therefore, IMPI is now starting to analyze and solve non-use cancellation actions following the Court’s legal reasonings stating that legal standing must be credited initially along with the complaint, without enabling complainants to credit such standing subsequently.

Consequently, it is advisable that titleholders file non-use cancellation actions only after being served with the official actions communicating the existence of pertinent barriers blocking the registration.

Article By Jaime Rodríguez of OLIVARES

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Trademarks

AI-Generated Content and Trademarks

Like this:

Relying on Noncompete Clauses May Not Be the Best Defense of Proprietary Data When Employees Depart

Like this: