Trademark Law

Subscribe to Trademark Law via RSS

 By: Lisa Y. Wang

This month, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board ruled that Bottega Veneta, a luxury Italian fashion brand, well known for its "weave design" handbags and accessories, could register a trademark for that specific design. Bottega Veneta handbags and accessories do not have obvious logos on the outside, signifying its origin. Instead, the weave patterns, multiple thin strips of leather forming a weave pattern (much like a basket weave) at a 45 degree angle, serves as its "trademark" and source of origin. Bottega Veneta claims that it created this very specific leather weaving technique and pattern, known as intrecciato, in the 1960’s.   Since there is no logo, this easily made weave pattern is constantly copied by fast fashion retailers and other brands, hence Bottega Veneta’s attempt to register a trademark for that specific pattern.

Continue Reading Weaving a Trademark

Very often one of a business’ most valuable assets is its internet domain name. Even in large, well-established companies, a portfolio of well-chosen domains amount to a significant set of assets, often driving sales and advertising. Yet many businesses often make poor choices in connection with these assets.

As the World Wide Web began to mature into a viable business method in the mid-1990’s, businesses began snapping up domain names. A significant number of startup companies began attempting to reinvent various categories of business by running them in an online or “virtual” presence. Most readers will recall failed businesses such as WebVan, pets.com and e-toys.com. Yet these businesses failed largely because of overly ambitious business plans which devoured enormous amounts of startup capital with elaborate advertising campaigns or, in WebVans’s case, an insanely ambitious attempt to build a nationwide grocery delivery logistics system from scratch with seed money.Continue Reading Bad Domain Names

By Dale C. Campbell

On July 31, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling protecting the right of privacy held by collegiate athletes against the use of their likeness in connection with video games. (Keller v. Electronic Arts, Inc. (2013) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 10-15387. This decision joins the Third Circuit’s decision in Ryan Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., U.S. App. LEXIS 10171 (3d Cir. 2013), finding that the collegiate athletes’ right to publicity outweighs Electronic Arts’ First Amendment rights. 

Sam Keller was a starting quarterback for Arizona State in 2005, before joining Nebraska in 2007. Electronic Arts ("EA") is the producer of a series of video games known as NCAA Football, in which EA seeks to replicate a school’s entire team as closely as possible. NCAA Football is an interactive game that allows the video gamer a wide range of playing options including modification of a player’s size and abilities as well as for which team he plays. Keller sued EA and the NCAA in a putative class action. EA filed a SLAPP motion ("Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation"), claiming that this conduct was protected by the First Amendment. The District Court denied the SLAPP motion, and EA appealed. 

The Ninth Circuit recognized that video games, like books, plays, and movies, are entitled to the full protections of the First Amendment.  (Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 131 S.Ct. 2729, 2733 (2011). However, the First Amendment rights are not absolute, and states may recognize the right of publicity to a degree consistent with the First Amendment. (Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad Co., 433 U.S. 562, 574-75 (1977).) 

Continue Reading THE NINTH CIRCUIT THROWS A PENALTY FLAG AGAINST ELECTRONIC ARTS

By Scott Hervey

“Everyone does it” exclaimed the IT staffer in charge of the company’s website. "Everyone uses their competitor’s brand as a keyword to trigger a paid advertisement."   The company’s chief marketing officer remembers something her mother use to say about jumping off a bridge…but that’s not important right now. They received a letter from a competitor’s lawyer and it’s time to get the company’s general counsel involved.

Over the past 10 years there have been a number of cases in State and Federal courts that have addressed the question of when the use of a competitor’s trademark as a keyword is actionable infringement. For a time the focus was on whether such use was “use in commerce” as required by the Lanham Act. Some courts held that there was no use in commerce when the competitor’s mark was used as a keyword to trigger an advertisement but the mark did not itself appear in the ad copy; other courts held that such use was “use in commerce.”   The debate over whether or not such use is “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act is now dead; most jurisdictions agree that the use of a competitor’s brand as a keyword is “use in commerce.”   The focus is now on whether such use creates a likelihood of confusion.

In Network Automation v. Advanced Systems Concepts, the 9th Circuit advanced a new four factor test for determining likelihood of confusion in keyword cases: i) mark strength; ii) evidence of actual confusion; iii) the type of goods and degree of purchaser care; iv) and the labeling and appearance of the advertisements and the surrounding context on the screen displaying the results page.    Continue Reading Keyword Advertising Quagmire

By Scott Hervey

What do Hooters, Twin Peaks, Canz, Tilted Kilt, and Mugs N Jugs have in common.  These are all “Breastaurants.” According to Wikipedia, a breastaurant is a “restaurant that has sexual undertones, most commonly in the form of large-breasted, skimpily dressed waitresses and barmaids.”    However, on October 23, 2012  the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a trademark registration for the mark BREASTAURANT to Bikini Bar and Restaurant, LLC for bar and restaurant services on the Principal Register..  Even more interesting then someone having filed an application to register the mark BREASTAURANT, is that the USPTO allowed the mark to register on the Principal Register without challenging the mark as being merely descriptive.  

15 USC 1052 provides as follows:

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it…. (e) Consists of a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them….

Matter that “merely describes” the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used is not registrable on the Principal Register. As noted by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeal (the precursor to the Federal Circuit) in In re Abcor Dev. Corp):

The major reasons for not protecting such marks are: (1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own products.Continue Reading THE BREASTAURANT TRADEMARK – NOT SUCH, A BIG DEAL AFTER ALL