Opinion ID: 2817831
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The CPS Marks

Text: Greene is a psychologist who developed an alternative approach for the treatment of behaviorally challenging children. By 1993, with his method still developing, he began a sixteen-year employment relationship with MGH. Throughout Greene's tenure at MGH, he continued to develop his method, including through studies he conducted at MGH. He also continued to disseminate his method through, among other outlets, unaffiliated workshops and his unaffiliated private practice. The development of Greene's method culminated in his 1998 book, The Explosive Child: A New Approach -3- for Understanding and Parenting Easily Frustrated, Chronically Inflexible Children (The Explosive Child). In 2001, Greene developed two service marks1 to identify his approach: Collaborative Problem Solving and Collaborative Problem Solving Approach (collectively, the CPS Marks or the Marks). Between 2002 and 2003, Greene and his business partner, Ablon, co-founded three organizations devoted to the CPS methodology, each making use of the CPS Marks. One of these organizations, the Collaborative Problem Solving Institute (the Institute), was an MGH-affiliated program within the MGH Department of Psychiatry. The Institute relied on MGH's non-profit status to solicit tax deductible donations, which were placed in a sundry fund that MGH administered. In addition, the MGH Development Office assisted with the Institute's fundraising efforts. Greene served as the Institute's Director and identified himself as such in numerous flyers, books, papers, and articles, as well as on stationery and the Institute website, which were branded with the MGH logo. The two other entities that Greene and Ablon founded, the CPS Clinic (the Clinic) and the Center for Collaborative Problem Solving, Inc. (the Center), were Massachusetts sub-chapter S 1 Service marks and trademarks function to identify the source of services and goods, respectively. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Winship Green Nursing Ctr., 103 F.3d 196, 199 n.2 (1st Cir. 1996). -4- corporations. The Clinic (which later merged with the Center, retaining the Center's name) shared space at MGH with the Institute and accepted referrals from it. However, the Clinic and the Center were private practices not formally affiliated with MGH. To wit, in an email during the planning stages of the Institute, the MGH Office of General Counsel acknowledged that Greene's private practice and the Institute would share space and interact through referrals, but expressed a need to mak[e] clear that the private practice is not associated or affiliated with MGH in any way. At all times, Greene has been the Center's President, and he and Ablon have been its sole and equal shareholders. In 2007, the Institute rebranded itself as Think:Kids and began using the service marks Think:Kids and Think:Kids Rethinking Challenging Kids to identify its programming. Although the Think:Kids marks were affiliated with MGH, it was Greene and Ablon's unaffiliated Center that registered these marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on the principal register.2 Greene has also sought to register the CPS Marks with the USPTO. Greene registered Collaborative Problem Solving Approach 2 In its Final Judgment and Declaration on MGH's summary judgment motion, the district court ordered the amendment of these registrations so as to make MGH the registrant instead of the Center. Greene does not contest that ruling. Therefore, this dispute only concerns the CPS Marks. -5- in his own name on the supplemental register3 on July 9, 2002, noting February 15, 2001 as the date of first use. In 2008, about a year before this action began, he filed applications to register The Collaborative Problem Solving Approach and Collaborative Problem Solving on the principal register. When MGH learned that Greene was seeking to register these marks in his own name, MGH filed oppositions to his applications.4 2. Greene's Employment Contracts with MGH and the IP Policy Greene's tenure at MGH ran from July 1993 to January 2009 and was the sum of ten consecutive appointments, each of which was six months to two years in length. The process for obtaining each appointment was the same. First, Greene would sign and submit an appointment application in which he agreed to abide by MGH's bylaws and 3 The supplemental register is a separate register for marks that are not yet eligible for registration on the principal register. See 15 U.S.C. § 1091(a). Marks registered on the supplemental register receive some but not all of the protections and legal advantages marks on the principal register receive. See How to Amend from the Principal to the Supplemental Register, USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/suppreg_ornamental.jsp (last modified Oct. 18, 2012). 4 A person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark upon the principal register may oppose another person's application to register that mark by filing an opposition stating the grounds therefor with the USPTO. 15 U.S.C. § 1063(a). -6- policies.5 Greene's first three applications, covering appointments from July 1, 1993 through December 31, 1996, stated, I agree to abide by the Bylaws, rules, regulations and policies of the Professional Staff and of the Hospital. (Emphasis added.) Greene's fourth and fifth applications, covering appointments from January 1, 1997 through November 4, 1999, stated, I agree to read and abide by the Bylaws, rules, regulations and policies of the Professional Staff and of the Hospital. (Emphasis added.) Finally, Greene's next (and last) five applications, covering appointments from November 5, 1999 through November 4, 2009, stated, I have received and had an opportunity to read the Bylaws of the [Medical/]Professional Staff. I specifically agree to abide by all such bylaws and any policies and procedures that are applicable . . . . (Emphasis added.) In 2005 and 2007, as part of his final two applications, Greene also signed supplemental release forms, which stated, I understand that the ownership and disposition of inventions and other intellectual property that I create during the time when I have my Professional Staff appointment shall be determined in accordance with the Intellectual Property Policy at the Hospital, a copy of which is . . . available at [URL]. 5 Section 2.01 of the bylaws (in force at all relevant times) required Staff Members to abide by all applicable . . . policies of the Hospital. -7- After submitting his applications, Greene would receive a letter informing him that the MGH Board of Trustees had appointed him to his position for a particular term. All eleven appointment letters6 stated, Enclosed is the Professional Staff Appointment Form which reflects the terms and conditions of the appointment. All eleven Professional Staff Appointment Forms stated, In discharging the duties and exercising the privileges of your appointment, you are required to . . . [a]bide by the Bylaws, rules, regulations, and policies of the Professional Staff and the Hospital. (Emphasis added.) None of these forms state that MGH's policies might change from time to time. MGH first enacted its intellectual property (IP) policy on April 21, 1995. Consequently, MGH did not have an IP policy in place when Greene received his first three appointments in June 1993, May 1994, and January 1995. As enacted in 1995, the policy provided: Trademarks shall be owned by MGH [1] if they are created by members in the course of their employment or affiliation with an Institution or [2] if they are used to identify any product or service originating with or associated with an Institution. MGH updated its IP policy on July 19, 2002. In relevant part, the 2002 revisions added a third scenario in which MGH would 6 In February 1999, Greene was promoted from Clinical Assistant in Psychology to Assistant in Psychology. Hence, even though there were only ten applications, Greene actually received eleven appointment letters. -8- acquire ownership of a mark: Trademarks shall be owned by [MGH] if they . . . [3] pertain to significant Institutional Activities, defined as any activities that received direct or indirect financial support from an Institution, including Institutional salary support or funding from any outside source awarded to or administered by an Institution.