Source: https://www.duetsblog.com/?s=hardware%27
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 16:32:53
Document Index: 760550168

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 501', '§1', '§1051', '§1051', '§1051', '§1060', '§3']

Search results for hardware' | DuetsBlog ®
Search results for: hardware'
By Tim Sitzmann on March 11, 2015
Posted in Domain Names, Fair Use, First Amendment, Infringement, Law Suits, Trademarks, TTAB
In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries. The case addresses the level of deference to be given to decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, if any. We’ve discussed the issue a number of times at DuetsBlog. I’d love to provide you with breaking news, but still no ruling yet.
However, the Fifth Circuit provided us with an interesting decision regarding potential liability for use of trademarks as part of gripe sites. A gripe site is a broad term that essentially means a website created for one purpose, to criticize a company or individual. Many of these gripe sites utilize the trademark of the target of the criticism both on the website and as part of the URL. The target’s first impulse is usually to send a letter to get the website taken down. However, as former and founding Duetsblogger Dan Kelly reasoned, pursuing these website owners can cause more harm than good. On Monday, the Fifth Circuit provided a good example of why brand owners should be cautious in pursing gripe sites.
Clark Baker is an investigator with the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (“OMSJ”). If you’re like me, you’ve never heard of either Mr. Baker or the OMSJ. The OMSJ identifies itself as an investigation agency which runs the HIV Innocence Group. According to the website, the group assists defendants who have been charged with HIV related crimes by exposing the failures and inadequacies of “HIV junk science.”
Unsurprisingly, not everybody agrees with some of the beliefs and statements of the OMSJ. Among these critics is Jeffrey Todd Deshong. Mr. Deshong runs the website HIV Innocence Group Truth, where Mr. Deshong critiques Mr. Baker, the OMSJ, and the opinions and scientific theories they utilize. The website incorporates the entirety of the OMSJ’s mark, but adds the word “truth” to the end. Equally unsurprising, the OMSJ does not like Mr. Deshong’s website and filed a federal complaint alleging trademark infringement on July 9, 2013.
The District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on June 30, 2014 (order available here, h/t to Public Citizen). While many gripe site defendants prevail on First Amendment grounds, the court here ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege any facts that could support a claim for trademark infringement.
The court relied upon the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 313, for the proposition that:
when dealing with domain names, a court must evaluate an allegedly infringing domain name in conjunction with the content of the website identified by the domain name.
The court examined the allegations of the complaint, noting that (1) the websites do not look like each other; (2) Deshong’s website does not advertise any product or service: and (3) the sole purpose of the website is to criticize Baker and the OMSJ. The court concluded that none of the factual allegations could be construed as alleging that a person, upon viewing the content, could be confused as to the source of the website. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion without additional analysis.
But what does this have to do with B&B Hardware? Substantively, not much. But what if Deshong had applied for a trademark for HIV INNOCENCE GROUP TRUTH in connection with “providing a website featuring information on HIV?” And what if OMSJ opposed, citing prior rights in the mark HIV INNOCENCE GROUP in connection with “providing a website featuring information on HIV?”
This hypothetical demonstrates the problems that could arise if Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decisions are considered conclusive as to the issue of a likelihood of confusion. Unlike a district court, the Board would not consider the content of the website unless it was referenced in the identification of services. It is likely that the plaintiff prevails in this hypothetical. However, in the district court, not only did the defendant win, but he won on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. This isn’t due to a mistake made by either the Board or the district court, but instead the limited nature of the jurisdiction, legal issues, and discovery for proceedings before the Board.
Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait to see how B&B Hardware plays out, but there may be a few more gripe sites to discuss depending on the outcome.
Legislators are having fun with them lately too, for example the Personal Rights in Names Can Endure Act (PRINCE Act), the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act), the Brewers Excise and Economic Relief Act (BEER Act), the Jumpstarting Our Business Sector Act (JOBS Act), the Value Our Time Elections Act (VOTE Act), and last but not least the Accountability and Congressional Responsibility On Naming Your Motions Act (ACRONYM Act). If you find these as amusing as I do, check out more of them in this article.
Acronyms are often abbreviations formed from the first initials of the words of a descriptive phrase. Nevertheless, acronyms may be registerable unless (1) “the wording it stands for is merely descriptive of the goods or services” and (2) it “is readily understood by relevant purchasers to be ‘substantially synonymous’ with the merely descriptive wording it represents.” TMEP 1209.03. An acronym will be considered “substantially synonymous” if it is an acronym for specific wording, the specific wording is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods or services, and the relevant consumer viewing the mark in connection with those goods or services will recognize it as an acronym of the descriptive wording. Id. So two important considerations that affect registerability of an acronym are the listing of the goods or services and the perception of the mark created by product packaging and/or marketing material relative to these goods or services.
A recent TTAB decision illustrates this concern. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently affirmed a refusal of CARS for “Computer software used for capturing road data and determining safe curve speeds for automobiles; Computer hardware used for capturing telemetry and road data” and “Software as a service featuring software for capturing road data and determining safe curve speeds for automobiles” on the basis that the mark is merely descriptive of the listed goods and services. The specimen filed with this use-based application showed CARS as being an acronym for “Curve Advisory Reporting System.” Given the use of the synonymous “automobiles” in this goods and services description, as well as the use on the specimen, the examiner found the mark to be descriptive and the Board agreed. Perhaps if the application did not include “automobiles” in the description and the example of use provided with the application did not so directly tie the meaning of the acronym to the listed goods and services, this may have been allowed.
With the popularity of acronyms, marketing teams working together with their legal friends can develop a suitable strategy for the application for the mark and the mark’s use that can help guide an acronym towards federal protection.
By Duets Guest Blogger on October 21, 2016
Posted in Advertising, Branding, International
Another installment of Apple surveillance: it appears the tech giant has enlisted a shell company to file trademark applications for its newest products. Problem is, they might be stuck there.
On October 27, Apple will hold a press event at its Cupertino, California headquarters, presumably to introduce new Macintosh computers. One rumored feature of the new MacBook Pro line of laptop computers is a touchscreen strip running along the top of the keyboard, which can change based on the application currently running.
Apple fans, ever eager to find the latest scoop on new products, have done their homework. Brian Conroy, an Irish trademark agent and solicitor, uncovered various foreign filings for the mark MAGIC TOOLBAR on his website, “The Trademark Ninja.” But the application for each application is a company named “Presto Apps America LLC,” and not Apple.
This includes a U.S. application in Class 9 identifying “Computers; computer hardware; computer software; computer peripheral devices; computer display screens and keyboards; electronic interfaces for use with computers” and claiming intent-to-use in U.S. commerce and priority based on a foreign application (in the combined jurisdiction of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg – BeNeLux).
Conroy concludes this is a masquerade:
The [sic] applied for the Global protection THE DAY before the last day they could, and have applied to Non-Paris Convention countries at the start of this month.
This may well be Apple trying to be clever, and conceal its new feature’s brand name – but what happens if it unveils the MAGIC TOOLBAR? Presumably, the cat is out of the bag, and Apple will want to assign the application to Apple, Inc. This may be more difficult than it seems – unlike trademark registrations, which are relatively straightforward to assign, intent-to-use trademark applications must be assigned “to a successor to the applicant’s business, or portion of the business to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing,” according to TMEP § 501.01(a):
In an application under §1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), the applicant cannot assign the application before the applicant files an allegation of use (i.e., either an amendment to allege use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c) or a statement of use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(d), except to a successor to the applicant’s business, or portion of the business to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing. Section 10 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §3.16.
This rule is made to prevent “horse trading” in ITU applications, such as applications filed merely to block a competitors mark or applications meant merely as “placeholders.” If an assignment does not meet these requirements, the trademark application – or any resulting registration – can be cancelled.
In other words, Apple would need to show Apple, Inc. acquired not just the trademark, but also the entire “business” of Presto Apps America LLC. It’s not immediately clear that there is any business associated with Presto Apps America. It is far more likely scenario that Presto Apps America is just meant to be the sort of “placeholder” this rule is designed to work against.
If the MAGIC TOOLBAR turns out to be real, I’ll be interested to see how Apple approaches the issue of ownership for these trademark applications.
I own a Samsung phone. Thankfully not a Note 7. My prior phone was a Samsung as well. Will my next one be a Samsung?
It’s safe to say that the Note 7 situation has been pretty disastrous. On the way back from a wedding last month, I heard an announcement made that hadn’t been made on my way out just a few days earlier. Each time passengers were boarding a flight, the gate attendants would announce that the FAA required all Note 7’s to be powered down throughout the entire flight. It’s never good when your product is suddenly singled out as being potentially unsafe for commercial flight. Samsung’s stock price promptly dropped a bit further.
The recalls were underway and replacements making their way into consumers hands. Then one of those replacements burst into flames on a plane in Louisville as the phone’s owner was powering it down. Then more stories about the replacements catching fire. Now Samsung has permanently halted production of one of its flagship phones and is working to provide either full refunds or a partial refund and a different Samsung phone.
Now it’s important to say that, of the over million Note 7 phones that have made it into consumers hands, there have been fewer than 100 fires to my knowledge. That’s not insignificant, but it is a very small percentage (on the flip side, the phone has only been out since August). And ethically, Samsung is doing the right thing. They aren’t throwing in behind Takata, Volkswagen, and General Motors in recent years.
Regardless there’s a huge cost. Not only are there roughly 2.5 million of these phones already made that will be going in the trash (hopefully they’ll be recycling as much of each phone as possible), but the brand is sure to take a hit as well. That hit is beyond just the reputational damage of selling a phone that catches fire and the incompetence (perceived or real) of issuing a replacement that catches fire.
Here are a few thoughts on why this is such a huge problem for Samsung even though they are doing their best to make things right:
Blackberry went from being a top seller to essentially nothing in the span of a few years. There’s no room to rest on your lead. The cell phone industry is notoriously cutthroat and fickle. Everything happens fast and there is not much time to recover. Going into this Samsung had the largest global market share of any smartphone company for the last three years running. That might help soften the blow, but big trees fall hard. Blackberry is a case in point.
Botched Recall.
Consumers of cutting edge tech products usually expect a few bugs and are willing to ride things out while the kinks are worked through. Spontaneous combustion usually isn’t one of the bugs you expect, but Samsung did the right thing and recalled the phones to fix the issue. A recall may be an inconvenience, but done quickly and efficiently, it may actually build credibility.
The problem is, they didn’t fix the issue. Their customers went the trouble of dealing with the recall, saving data, perhaps going without a phone for a few days, only to find the replacement was potentially just as problematic as the original.
There are obvious pressures to get the issue solved quickly, but you lose a great deal of credibility and goodwill when you say you’ve fixed the problem when you haven’t. The problem with the replacements may be the same distinct from the original problem, but that doesn’t matter when the symptom is a fireball you most likely don’t want. To the public, it looks like you were careless.
The Note 7 operates on the Android system, as do a plethora of other phones. iPhone owners purchase Apple operating system and the seamless connection to their other Apple products along with the iPhone itself. They may be more willing to wait for a solution, take an less recent upgrade, or wait for the next iPhone product release. When it comes to phones, Samsung doesn’t have that same sort of economic moat . That brings me to the next point:
Immediate Availability of Other Flagships.
Any number of flagship phones are available right now and operating the Android system. Google just announced its new Pixel phone, for one. There’s no need to wait around or take that slightly older upgrade unless you just absolutely love Samsung products, hardware, layout, etc. Just check out the competition.
Nature of the Flagships.
The R & D budget tends to focus on the flagships. The flagship phones get pretty drastic overhauls every couple of years and innovations are incorporated every year, kind of like the car industry in the 50’s and 60’s where you could tell a model year by the back up lights. The designs and innovations that make it into this year’s flagship flow down through the company’s other series in the following years.
This is a particular problem for Samsung as it appears that they can’t reproduce the problem and aren’t sure exactly why the Note 7 offers the unexpected bonus feature of also being a portable fire source. This has the potential to dam, or at least slow, that flow of intellectual property into Samsung’s other offerings. If some suspect features were already incorporated into other designs, it may halt the production of that series.
That’s more bad news because the reputational harm may not be limited to the here and now. Some of next year’s customers may choose a competitor, not for fear of their phone catching fire or a lack of faith in Samsung, but because those other phones might not get the planned upgrade, might be missing certain features that others offer, or might not be out at all.
Phone Cycles.
Most people hold onto their phones for a couple of years before upgrading unless they have to have the latest or happen to drop their current phone in a puddle. These phones cost hundreds of dollars and Samsung may be missing out on a large segment of the current cycle. The flagships tend to be the real money makers too, so by pulling the flagship they’re really taking an economic hit this cycle.
Moreover, most smartphone users seem to either go for the hottest new thing or stick with brand they know and are comfortable with. They are not particularly loyal (iPhone excepted), but we are creatures of habit. Those purchasers that Samsung loses this cycle may, or may not come back next cycle. If they’re happy with whatever device they purchase, they may just buy the upgraded version next time around rather than return to Samsung. This is a huge opportunity for Motorola, Sony, Huawei, LG, Apple, etc.
I like Samsung products, and I understand that the pressures to innovate in the smartphone industry are exceedingly high. I don’t think Samsung was particularly careless, just that they pushed a little past the limit of their technology. But maybe the limit is really only clear in hindsight.
I’ve always considered my options when buying a new phone, and I will when I purchase a new one next year. I’ll consider Samsung like I have in the past. It just might be the best brand next year. I know all smartphone manufacturers will be taking second looks at their products, but I’m fairly certain Samsung will be taking fourth and fifth looks at theirs. Samsung will still be around in a year, no doubt. But they may not be at the top, and their future may be a little more questionable.
By Brent Lorentz on July 8, 2016