By: Scott Hervey
Chipotle’s entry into the burger business has a Boston based small burger chain up in arms. The Boston burger spot, which has been in operation since 2010 and goes by the name Tasty Burger, has a beef with the brand Chipotle has chosen for its restaurants, Tasty Made.
Tasty Burger claims
In business, there are numerous 
opportunities for pitfalls, mistakes and errors and they come up in all different legal areas – from basic formation issues to labor and employment to intellectual property. Mistakes and missteps involving intellectual property can be particularly problematic because IP is a company asset; it constitutes a part of (often a significant part of) a company’s valuation. In my 20 years working with start-up companies – and even fully grown-up companies, I have seen mistakes involving company intellectual property prove to be disastrous. With careful planning and good counsel, these mistakes are completely avoidable.
#1. Failure To Transfer the IP From The Founder Into the Company. It is a foundational item for any company – if the company is being formed around a piece of IP or if a piece of IP is intended for use by a company, the company should make sure the founder that owns the IP must contribute it to the company. While a very basic issue, this problem plagues more start-ups than you can imagine. Most often it happens during the informal, pre-formation time frame when founders are kicking around an idea and developing code and no one has consulted a lawyer. Conflict between the founders develop and there is a divergence of opinion on the value brought to the table by the non-developer founders; the developers decide to split with the IP and form a new company. While this will likely generate lawsuits just as soon as the developer’s company is in a financing round, the non-developer founders will very likely not receive as much as they would have had the IP been properly assigned to the company.Continue Reading Five IP Pitfalls That Start-Up (and Grown Up) Companies Can Easily Avoid
Another intellectual property dispute has arisen in the brewing industry. This time, however, the battle took place on Canadian soil. British Columbia based Pacific Western Brewing (“PWB”) sued renowned Mexican brewery Cerveceria del Pacifico (“CDP”), arguing the latter’s name was confusingly similar to PWB’s various brew-related trademarks. For those who do not know, Cerveceria del Pacifico is the brewery responsible for Cerveza Pacifico Clara, better known as Pacifico. Although the claim concerns numerous PWB marks, the lawsuit seems to center on the alleged similarity between their Pacific Pilsner marks and CDP’s Pacifico marks. After analyzing the merits of this case, I cannot understand why PWB felt the need to pursue this lawsuit. Aside from both marks generally using the word “Pacific,” the marks are vastly different.
First, Cerveza Pacifico Clara
is clearly distinct from Pacific Pilsner. Even if you compare the commonly used name Pacifico to Pacific Pilsner, the marks are distinguishable, albeit slightly more similar. Further, the respective design marks are distinct. Pacifico’s mark is generally presented against a bright yellow background with the words appearing in red and a different shade of yellow. The logo also features a lifesaver encompassing a hill with the port city of Mazatlan’s lighthouse hill, known locally as Cerro Del Creston. In contrast, Pacific Pilsner’s mark is generally presented against a white background with the words appearing in red and iridescent blue. Although the PWB designs vary slightly, they consistently include a sailboat. Based on these descriptions, it should be clear that the marks are patently distinguishable.Continue Reading Pacifico Defends its Trademark Rights on Canadian Soil
As I frequently 
mention in my articles, trademark law is a much more prevalent part of the average person’s life than they realize. We are surrounded by the trademarks of numerous companies every time that we step outside, or even when we look around our own homes. However, we would not generally expect for trademark law to be inserted into a presidential campaign. At least, not until Donald Trump threw his hat in the ring.
Since Donald Trump has coined the campaign slogan “Make America Great Again,” he has been quite diligent about protecting his brand. Trump’s army of trademark attorneys have been aggressively threatening companies such as Café Press and an anti-Trump interest group with cease and desist letters ordering that they cease using the mark “Make America Great Again.” Although this is a shock to many of us who are not accustomed to seeing trademark law inserted into the political sphere, it should not come as too much of a surprise given Mr. Trump’s involvement. Donald Trump‘s acute understanding of the power of branding has significantly contributed to his net worth that allegedly exceeds $8.7 billion dollars. So his diligent brand protection is hardly out of character.Continue Reading Does Trump Own “Make America Great Again?”
On September 9, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Costco was willfully infringing Tiffany & Co.’s trademarks by selling diamond engagement rings bearing the renowned jewelry retailer’s name. The suit started back in 2012 when a patron of Costco in Huntington Beach, California decided to reach out to Tiffany to express her disappointment in Tiffany offering its rings for sale at Costco. She also stated that the rings were being promoted on signs within the store as Tiffany diamond engagement rings. After receiving the complaint and knowing that it did not sell its rings through Costco, Tiffany launched an investigation revealing that the Huntington Beach Costco was in fact displaying diamond engagement rings in a case labeled with the word Tiffany. The investigation also revealed that the Costco salespeople were referring to them as Tiffany engagement rings. Accordingly, Tiffany took action.
According to the Court’s ruling, prior to the lawsuit, Costco promised that it would remove references to Tiffany from its display case signs and even sent a letter to customers who bought the rings offering a full refund if they were not satisfied. Irrespective of these acts, Tiffany filed suit, ironically enough, on February 14, 2013. In response, Costco filed a counterclaim alleging that Tiffany’s trademarks were invalid because they sought to prevent others from using the word “Tiffany” as a generic description of a type of ring setting. Almost a year and a half later, the Court ruled in favor of Tiffany and against Costco. Specifically, Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the evidence established that Costco had infringed Tiffany’s trademarks by selling engagement rings and had confused consumers by using the word Tiffany in display cases. Judge Swain ruled that “Despite Costco’s arguments to the contrary, the court finds that, based on the record evidence, no rational finder of fact could conclude that Costco acted in good faith in adopting the Tiffany mark.”Continue Reading Tiffany & Company v. Costco Wholesale: Tiffany is far from Generic
