Source: http://www.visaepatentes.com/2010/06/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:15:16+00:00

Document:
US CAD company Autodesk's efforts to monopolise the ".dwg" file extension via a pending US “DWG” word mark application (No. 78 852 798) claiming all kinds of "computer software", have, even though the USPTO has not yet issued a final refusal to register the mark, meanwhile led to the satisfactory result that file extentions cannot be trademark protected in the US (see, e.g., here, here, or my earlier post).
Even though Autodesk had to disavow the US lawsuit Autodesk vs DS SolidWorks that, as fas as Autodesk is concerned, anyone in the world is free to use “.dwg” as a file extension (cf. doc 241, filed on December 31, 2009; see also here), a file extension is in fact to be considered descriptive and/or generic due to its functional use, while it is a fundamental rule of US trademark law that trademark protection is not issued on symbols or marks that are entirely functional.
In Europe, Autodesk applied for a Community Trademark "DWG" (No. 004703641) claiming, inter alia, "Computer software; computer aided design software; software developer tools; software for sharing information in a secure environment; downloadable software", which meanwhile has been withdrawn after two oppositions filed by opponents "Knowledge Base Software (Pty) Ltd" and "DS SolidWorks Corporation" and a subsequent appeal.
In Germany, two parallel “DWG” word marks are currently pending - No. 3020090602751 and No. 3020090276943 - the latter being a conversion of the withdrawn CTM registration -, both claiming computer software, CAD software or the like, which may, if granted, potentially be used to prohibit usage of the “.dwg” file extension in Germany.
However, even though Autodesk's respective disavowal in the US lawsuit is irelevant in Germany, Autodesk's German trademarks most likely cannot be used to obstruct using “.dwg” file extensions, since appropriate legal measures and arguments exist to both attack a potentially granted mark and, if necessary, defend against an infringement threat.
File extensions are technical indications of a file's format and, as such, cannot be registered due to absolute grounds for refusal according to § 8 II MarkenG (German Trademark Act), since, in my opinion, such signs are devoid of any distinctive character (§ 8 II, 1) and/or consist exclusively of indications which may serve to designate the kind, intended purpose or other characteristics of the claimed goods or services (§ 8 II, 2), in analogy to the related US doctrine.
Autodesk may still argue that, according to § 8 III MarkenG, “DWG” has established itself in affected trade circles as distinguishing sign such that possible absolute grounds for refusal have been overcome. In fact, Autodesk has already argued along this line in the above-mentioned US lawsuit Autodesk vs DS SolidWorks (cf. doc 1, Complaint, filed on September 19, 2008; see also here) by asserting that design professionals would recognize “DWG” as the name of Autodesk's proprietary technology and file format (doc 1, §§ 9, 10).
But Autodesk has also acknowledged the importance of interoperability between AutoCAD and third-party programs, for which reason technology transfer and licensing programs have been set up (doc 1, §§ 14, 15) by Autodesk, such as the “Autodesk Developer Network” or the RealDWG” licensing program. Autodesk further acknowledges that “competitors also have incorporated a reverse-engineered forms of Autodesk's proprietory DWG file format into their software” and that “limited use of .dwg solely as a filename extension may be necessary to achieve a level of interoperability of Autodesk programs” (doc 1, § 17).
However, design experts and CAD users certainly got used to the fact that file extensions generally are not primarily associated with a file's or a software's origin but rather with its technical format. It is, for instance, well known that even though formats like “.doc” or “.pdf” may originally have been developed by Microsoft or Adobe Systems, files carrying such extensions do not necessarily have to be generated by software products of these firms, even though at least the “.doc” format is still proprietary. Computer users would consider a file extension to have no origin-designating function, but rather regard it as a link to technical properties of the file in a merely descriptive and functional way. And in fact, besides the authorised and/or licensed usage of “.dwg” files, there exist many more software products from numerous origins not authorised or controlled by Autodesk for converting or otherwise manipulating “.dwg” files.
For these reasons and when considering the extensive evidence filed with the letter of protest of March 16, 2010 in the parallel US registration proceedings, it appears highly doubtful whether (i.) “DWG” really has established itself in affected trade circles as distinguishing sign for Autodesk's products and technology and whether (ii.) using the file extension “.dwg” represents a relevant use of Autodesk's trademark at all.
As a counter measure a request for cancellation because of absolute grounds for refusal (§ 8 and § 50 MarkenG) according to § 54 MarkenG may be filed with the GPTO within a period of 10 years from the date of registration (§ 50 II MarkenG). Alternatively, an immediate third party submission could also be considered.
For the same reasons, as a defensive measure, the prospect of success of a trademark infringement action against usage of the “.dwg” file extension based Autodesk's potential German “DWG” trademarks would also be rather limited, since such claims may be tackled based on § 23 MarkenG, which limits the scope of a registered trademark in that (i.) signs identical with or similar to the registered trade mark may be used as indications concerning characteristics or properties of the claimed goods or services (§ 23, No 2), in particular its kind, quality, intended purpose, value or the like, and (ii.) the trademark may be used where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service (§ 23, No 3), provided such use is not contrary to accepted principles of morality.
Well-known US CAD company Autodesk Inc. holds, inter alia, pending “DWG” word mark application (No. 78 852 798) claiming “computer software for [...] creation and manipulation of engineering and design data, particularly adapted for engineering, architecture, manufacturing, building, and construction applications [...]; CAD software; computer software for animation, graphics and design modelling applications”. "DWG" is an acronym of the term “drawing” and used as a generic and merely descriptive term for Autodesk's CAD file format.
The submitted survey does not reflect recognition of DWG as a trademark, since no distinction was made between use as a trademark and use as the name of a file format.
relevant and supporting a reasonable ground for refusal according to 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e) (1), requiring that “merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive” trademarks shall be refused.
With the letter of protest of March 16, 2010, extensive evidence (140 pages) has been submitted as to possible descriptiveness and/or genericness of the acronym “DWG” due to its functional use as file extension, based on the fact that file extensions are functional and that computers use them to identify formats, and associate them with application programs. It is a fundamental rule of trademarks that they are not issued on symbols or marks that are entirely functional.
The letter of protest of May 21, 2010 relates to US case 3:08-cs-04397 (Autodesk vs DS SolidWorks) pending in the Northern District of California, in which Autodesk sued SolidWorks for acts of unfair competition including alleged infringement of Autodesk's “DWG” trademark due to SolidWorks' usage of the characters “DWG” as part of software product names, domain names and the like (cf. Document 1, Complaint, of Autodesk vs DS Solid Works, filed on September 19, 2008). To resolve the matter, Autodesk and SolidWorks have meanwhile each agreed to dismiss all claims and have entered into a confidential settlement agreement (see here).
In that case, Autodesk especially complained about SolidWorks' use of the “.dwg” file extension without being authorised and/or enabled to do so as a member of the “Autodesk Developer Network” or under the “RealDWG” licensing program. Autodesk respectively argues that any usage of the “.dwg” file extension not being under their control would impair Autodesk's reputation for its DWG technology, since unauthorised usage of the DWG file format would not guarantee full interoperability with Autodesk's flagship software AutoCAD.
Supplementary to this competition law related argumentation, Autodesk took the view that the “.dwg” file extension is recognised by design professionals as the name of Autodesk's proprietary DWG technology and thus is primarily associated with Autodesk and AutoCAD. As a result, Autodesk claimed that its pending DWG trademark also covers the usage of the “.dwg” file extension since “DWG” allegedly is so well-known as identification of Autodesk's products and technology, that design experts do not recognise a functional or descriptive meaning of “.dwg” but instead associate the file extension with Autodesk.
ownership of file extension designations cannot be appropriated under US Trademark Law (i.e. the Lanham Act), since file extensions are inherently functional, and functional uses cannot be trade-marked. It is stated that computer programmers and computer users should be free to designate file extensions as they see fit, without the fear of infringing trade-marks.
any even arguably functional use of DWG, including the use of DWG as a file extension, [i.e.] anyone in the world is free to use “.dwg” as a file extension as far as Autodesk is concerned [such that] there is no concern that [Autodesk] will obtain a monopoly over the .dwg file extension and prevent its use in the industry (doc 241, p. 5, lns. 14-17).
Autodesk disavowed any and all ownership of its putative [US] word mark DWG with respect to its use by anyone as a computer file extension, regardless of the format of the file in question (doc 241, p. 6, lns. 18-26).
JUDGE ALSUP: I want -- you're skating by something that's very important to me. So I want to get a clear answer. All right? Will you disavow, from here to eternity and for the rest of the universe, that the world has a right to use .dwg as a file extension, and you're not going to try to assert, here or anywhere else, that that use as a file extension violates any law?
JUDGE ALSUP: You will be in trouble if you don't give me -- listen. If you are trying to monopolize .dwg, you and your company are in big trouble.
MR SABRI: We absolutely are not, your Honor.
JUDGE ALSUP: Well, then disavow it.
JUDGE ALSUP: You're not disavowing it?
MR SABRI: I am disavowing it, your Honor. Autodesk cannot state claims against functional uses of .dwg, and the distinction between a word mark DWG and the functional uses I believe will be very clear by this presentation.
JUDGE ALSUP: I want to hear you say we disavow it.
MR SABRI: We disavow any claims against functional uses of the .dwg, your Honor.
Regardless of whether or not Autodesk's DWG trademark application will be rejected in the end, any competitor (in the US) is thus expressly allowed to use “.dwg” as file extension regardless of the level of compatibility of such files with those “.dwg” files generated by Autodesk's or their licensee's software products. But this would have been the case anyway, even without Autodesk's disavowal, which may turn out to be the only way to save the trademark application from refusal due to its "merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive” character according to 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e) (1).
file extensions are functional [since their primary purpose is to tell the computer the type of the file it is handling], and functional uses cannot be trademarked. To rule otherwise would invite a clog on commerce, given the millions of software applications. The limited universe of extension permutations would soon be encumbered with claimants and squatters purporting to own exclusive rights to file extensions.

References: § 8
 § 8
 § 17
 § 50
 § 54
 § 23
 § 1052
 § 1052