Source: https://www.newyorktrademarkattorneyblog.com/category/trademark-news-stories/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 11:01:05
Document Index: 675829229

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1209', '§1209', '§1202', '§1202', '§43', '§43', '§1125']

Trademark News Stories Category Archives — Page 2 of 2 — New York Trademark Attorney Blog Published by New York Intellectual Property Lawyers — Law Offices of Nikki Siesel PLLC
Articles Posted in Trademark News Stories
Taylor Swift Sued For Trademark Infringement Involving Her Brand LUCKY 13
On May 20, 2014, Blue Sphere Inc. doing business as Lucky 13 (hereinafter “Lucky 13” or “Plaintiff”) and Robert Kloetzly filed a lawsuit in California Federal Court against Taylor Swift (hereinafter “Swift”) and her business entities alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and common law misappropriation. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, Swift’s profits, his lost profits, damages, including punitive damages and attorney fees. Lucky 13 owns multiple U.S. Trademark Registrations for LUCKY 13 for goods included but not limited to the following categories: clothing in International Class 25, various types of bags and purses in International Class 18, jewelry in International Class 14, hair products and body sprays in International Class 3, and other consumer goods related to automobiles and motorcycles. It is alleged that Swift started selling clothing under the mark LUCKY 13 sometime in 2012. In the Complaint, it is also alleged that Swift also started to sell other merchandise under the brand LUCKY 13 in and about that same time.
Lucky 13 further claims that Swift had filed about sixty federal trademark applications with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). Many of these trademarks were for apparel and similar goods. It seems curious that Swift pursued trademark registrations for other clothing brands, but choose not to file an application for her mark LUCKY 13. Lucky 13 contends that this was because Swift was aware of their use of LUCKY 13, and knew that an application would be refused. There is ample discussion in the Complaint with regard to Swift being a smart entrepreneur. However, this is a strategic and backhanded compliment to imply that she should have known better, before violating Lucky 13’s trademark rights.
Plaintiff contends that Swift’s use of the mark LUCKY 13 is likely to cause confusion as to source and origin because both parties’ goods are sold in the same distribution channels at similar price points. The parties appear to be targeting the same consumer demographic. Plaintiff claims that Swift markets herself as liking fast cars and dangerous men and by admission Lucky 13 targets the same consumer type.
Tagged: Likelihood of Confusion and Trademark Infringement
Updated: June 2, 2014 9:17 pm
King.com Limited Abandons Its Federal Trademark Application For CANDY
On February 6, 2013, King.com Limited (“King”), the social game publisher of the popular Candy Crush Saga, filed a trademark application for the mark CANDY in international classes 9, 25, & 41. Among other goods and services, King was looking to protect the term CANDY for computer games, downloadable software, clothing, and a variety of services in the entertainment and sports arena. The filing of the trademark application brought controversy to the gaming world once the media reported on it. Many gaming software developers thought this was an effort to gain control over a common word and exclude other smaller competitors from use it in broad categories of goods and services. King spoke out on its motives for filing a trademark application for CANDY.
I can understand the point of view from King’s competitors. I also think King has a valid concern in protecting its intellectual property and in preventing consumer confusion in the marketplace. Those who understand trademark law would point out that a common word, can most certainly function as a trademark, as long as it is not used to describe a function, characteristic, quality, feature, purpose, use or ingredient of the goods or services. See TMEP §1209.01(b).
If a mark is merely descriptive of the goods and services, it will be be refused on the Principal Register, but may be able to register on the Supplemental Register. In other words, if the mark is not inherently distinctive, it may register on the Principal Register, only upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness. See our blog post entitled Can A Flavor Or A Scent Receive Federal Trademark Protection? for a detailed discussion of acquired distinctiveness. Whether a mark is merely descriptive must be made after considering the goods and services in relationship to the proposed mark. Also, if only part of a multiword trademark is descriptive, then it may be appropriate to disclaim any exclusive right in the descriptive portion of the mark. However, the mark should be allowed to proceed to registration with the disclaimer.
Posted in: Merely Descriptive Or Generic and Trademark News Stories
Tagged: Candy Trademark and King.com Limited
Updated: March 7, 2014 3:21 pm
Has One Of Tiffany and Company’s Trademarks Become Generic?
Tiffany has been in the jewelry business since 1886. It holds 97 trademarks that relate to its company name “Tiffany”. Tiffany and Company and Tiffany NJ LLC (“Tiffany”) sued Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) in the Southern District of NY alleging trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, unfair competition, injury to business reputation, false and deceptive business practices, and false advertising. See Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. No. 13-CV-1041 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2013). Costco counterclaimed arguing that the terms “Tiffany” and “Tiffany Setting” are generic words for ring settings that have multiple prongs shooting upwards from the base of the ring to hold a single gemstone (a particular setting type). Costco further asserts that Tiffany has no right to prevent Costco or any other third party from using the term “Tiffany” in its generic or descriptive sense.
Tiffany alleges that Costco is using the TIFFANY trademark in the descriptions of two rings to sell diamond engagement rings. These rings are not manufactured by Tiffany. Tiffany argues that use of the TIFFANY mark in this manner is illegal. The jewelry manufacturer and retailer moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Costco’s counterclaim. The Tiffany registrations that are relevant to this dispute are U.S. Registration No. 1,228,409 TIFFANY in International Class 014 for jewelry and other goods and U.S. Registration No.133,063 for the stylized mark TIFFANY for jewelry and other goods. Tiffany further alleges that it refers to one style of engagement rings as a TIFFANY setting ring (a six prong setting that holds one diamond). The USPTO registered these trademarks and as a result, there is a presumption of validity for Tiffany. This is one of many advantages of filing your trademark on the Principal Register . This places Costco in the position of having to overcome the presumption that consumers perceive the mark as inherently distinctive.
Trademarks are evaluated and are categorized based on the strength or weakness of the mark. The scope of protection given a trademark depends on whether it is considered inherently distinctive. Generic terms cannot function as trademarks. See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §1209.02(b) where it states that a claim of acquired distinctiveness cannot overcome a generic refusal. This is because generic words are understood by the general public to refer primarily to the category of goods or services and does not distinguish the products or services on the basis of source.
Tagged: How Trademarks Become Generic and Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Updated: February 14, 2014 8:53 pm
Disney Prevails In Its Trademark Lawsuit Involving Its Movie Frozen
Disney filed a lawsuit in a California Federal Court, Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Phase 4 Films, Inc. et al, 2:13-cv-09401, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Phase 4 Films released its movie entitled “The Legend of Sarila” on November 1, 2013, generating low box office revenue. Three weeks later on November 19, 2013 Disney released its animated film Frozen. Disney alleges that once Phase 4 Films learned about the success of Frozen, they decided to retitle the film to Frozen Land. In addition, Phase 4 Films redesigned its artwork, packaging, and logo to take advantage of the financial success of the Disney Film.
To compare the promotional materials and looks of the logos, review the Complaint filed by Disney. Make your own decision as to whether Phase 4 Films replicated the trademark logo and look of Disney’s Frozen. Phase 4 Films may have hoped to rely on the fact that the title of a single creative work can not receive federal trademark protection and it may have overlooked the other legal protections available. See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §1202.08. However, a name of a series of creative works can be registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) under TMEP §1202.08(c). For example, the series titles of the Star Wars movies could seek protection while the single title of the movie Titanic could not.
The next logical question is how can the single title of a creative work be protected under the law? One means of protection would be to include a cause of action for unfair competition under §43(a) the Lanham Act in your federal complaint, if appropriate. See Lanham Act §43(a) 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). Disney included an unfair competition action in its lawsuit against Phase 4 Films. Keep in mind that this is a difficult case to prove because you must show that the title achieved secondary meaning. This usually requires demonstrating high advertising expenditures, significant media coverage, and consumer surveys. One may also consider filing for a state trademark registration as a means of protection. The registration process is much simpler than the federal process and its filing fees are lower. There is also no established legal mechanism to cancel a state registration. If you want to challenge a state trademark registration, you must file a civil action. Lastly, a state registration will have a strong deterrent effect on third parties because the state registration will appear in trademark search reports.
Tagged: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Phase 4 Films and Legal Protection For Titles To Creative Works
Updated: March 7, 2014 3:41 pm