It behooves a business to establish a uniform policy on trademarks, consistency helps build recognition, and strengthens a mark. However, for businesses in the service industry, it may also behoove the business to have a policy on uniform trademarks. Uniforms can be very powerful indicators of source, readily recognized by customers and prospective customers. Here are a few examples:
One of the most common questions trademark owners pose is when to use the ®-symbol, and when to use TM. The answer is relatively straight forward: if the mark is federally registered for a particular product, the mark can (and should) be identified with the ®-symbol when it is used in connection with those products. If the owner of a registered mark fails to use the ®-symbol, or otherwise identify the mark as being federally registered, then the owner’s ability to recover damages from infringers may be limited.
Conversely, if the mark is not registered, the owner should not use the ®-symbol. Using the ®-symbol in connection with an unregistered mark could subject the trademark owner to an action for false marking, although proving damages for this false marking can be difficult.
So when is TM appropriate? Anyone who believes that a term is their trademark can identify the trademark with a TM. There are good reasons to use the TM symbol: it is evidence of “attempts and intent to educate the trade and purchasing public that it regards the term . . . as its trademark for such goods.” In re Mine Safety Appliances Company, Serial No. 75/501,608, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1694, 1700 (T.T.A.B. 2002). However, it is well settled that use of TM in connection with otherwise unregistrable matter does not make such matter a trademark. Id. In Eagle Snacks, Inc. v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 571, 573-4, 228 U.S.P.Q. 625, 628 (D.N.J. 1985), the court noted plaintiff’s ultimately unsuccessful attempts to “strengthen” its purported trademark in HONEY ROAST, including causing the letters “TM” to be placed above the word “Roast” and implementing the use of the word “Brand” to modify the mark.
In Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902, 907, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1995), successfully showed that plaintiff did not use “Paramahansa Yogananda” as a service mark in party by presenting “expert testimony that SRF did not use the term “Paramahansa Yogananda” with any of the traditional trademark indicia (e.g., use of the term with a “TM” sign next to it).
However, the use of TM is an admission that the term is a trademark, and thus before using TM a trademark owner should investigate whether the mark is in fact available. In London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1148, 1151 n. 1, 1987 WL 11382 (N.D. Ill. 1987), London claimed that Samsonite’s use of TM in connection with HANGER LOCK, would cause confusion. Although Samsonite argued that that use of TM was inadvertent, and had been discontinued, it was enough for the court to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss.
BOTTOM LINE: If you mark is registered, use the ®-symbol when the mark is used on any of the products or services for which it is registered. If the mark is not registered, do not use the ®-symbol, and consider using TM to strengthen the mark, but make sure that the mark is available, because TM can be an admission that a term is being used as an trademark.
In Quiktrip West, Inc., v. Weigel Stores, Inc.,[2020-1304] (January 7, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Quiktrip’s opposition to registration of Weigel’s W WEIGEL’S KITCHEN NOW OPEN:
in view of QuikTrip’s QT KITCHENS mark:
The Board evaluated the likelihood of confusion between the marks by referencing the factors set forth in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. It first found that the parties’ identical-in-part goods and related services, overlapping trade channels, overlapping classes of customers, and similar conditions of purchase pointed to a likelihood of confusion finding. However, the Board found that the dissimilarity of the marks weighed against a likelihood of confusion. In conducting its similarity analysis, the Board acknowledged that both marks include the word “KITCHEN(S)” but determined that customers would not focus on that word for source identification because it is “at least highly suggestive, if not descriptive.
The Federal Circuit agreed that the Board correctly analyzed the marks as a whole, saying that it is not improper for the Board to determine that, for rational reasons, it should give “more or less weight to a particular feature of the mark” provided that its ultimate conclusion regarding the likelihood of confusion rests on a consideration of the marks in their entireties. The Federal Circuit said that the Board properly found that, when evaluating the similarity of the marks, it should accord less weight to the shared term KITCHEN(S) because “kitchen” is a “highly suggestive, if not descriptive” word. The Federal Circuit added that the Board was entitled to afford more weight to the dominant, distinct portions of the mark.
15 USC 1115(b)(4) provides that the use of a registered term, otherwise than as a mark, which is descriptive of, and used fairly and in good faith only to describe your goods or services, is not trademark infringement. The Northern District of California in Freelancer International Pty. Ltd. v. Upwork Global, Inc. [20-cv-06132-SI]https://trademarks.harnessip.com/wp-admin/upload.php?item=511, recently provided some helpful guidance on what qualifies as a permissible descriptive use.
Freelancer Technology Pty Limited sued Upwork for infringement of U.S. Reg. No. 4,284,314 on FREELANCER, complaining about Upworks’ use of Freelance in connection with its software:
Defendants argued they use the plain meaning of the word “freelancer” on their app display names and elsewhere to describe the appropriate users: freelancers. Defendants further argued they use the word “freelancer” in good faith because they trade on Upwork’s own considerable goodwill and have not sought to trademark the words “Freelance” or “Freelancers.” Finally, defendants argue they use the word “freelancer” “otherwise than as a mark” and rely on defendants’ own Upwork trademark.
The court noted that the Ninth Circuit has identified at least two factors to consider when determining whether a term is being used as a mark: (1) “whether the term is used as a symbol to attract public attention, which can be demonstrated by the lettering, type style, size and visual placement and prominence of the challenged words”; and (2) “whether the allegedly infringing user undertook precautionary measures such as labeling or other devices designed to minimize the risk that the term will be understood in its trademark sense.”
The Court found that all of Upwork’s uses of Freelancer were proper and descriptive. The court specifically said it was not “persuaded that bold font and a capital letter are sufficient to show defendants use “Freelancer” as a mark versus a descriptive term – especially when Upwork’s distinctive lime green logo or coloring is placed directly alongside the various notifications.” The Court Defendants do not list the word “Freelancer” among defendants’ own publicly listed trademarks, nor do defendants implement a stylized font or “TM” symbol when using the word “Freelancer.”
The case is notable for its guidance that merely capitalizing the word, or using a bold typeface does not turn a descriptive use into a trademark use. However, it is advisable to avoid a distinctive typeface, and obviously avoid identifying the mark with a TM.
Topps Co. sued Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty for patent infringement and trade dress infringement.
The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of the patent, and of non-infringement of the trade dress.
As to the trade dress infringement claim, the district court said no reasonable jury could find that the trade dresses of the Juicy Drop Pop and the Squeezy Squire Pop are confusingly similar because the lack of similarity between the two products is “overwhelming.” The district court noted that (1) in SSP, the nozzle cap and candy handle are adjacent to each other, while the nozzle and the handle in JDP are located on opposite ends, (2) SSP’s nozzle cap has a plastic “geyser” of the liquid candy in the same color as the nozzle cap, whereas JDP lacks an analogous feature and its nozzle and nozzle cap are a different color from that of the rest of the trade dress. (3) SSP’s nozzle cap and handle are far larger and in different shapes from those of JDP. (4) Lastly, SSP’s bottle has an oval-shaped compressible portion with concentric ovals; JDP ‘s compressible bottle has a round compressible portion with a swirl design. The district court said “[t]aking these features into account, the overall impression of the two products are dissimilar.
Hot N’ Sweet Concepts, LLC sued Nextbite Brands, LLC, in the Western District of Oklahoma for infringing its MOTHER CLUCKER trademark. In addition to the inexplicable popularity of MOTHER CLUCKER as a name for a restaurant, this case potentially has another important lesson for trademark practitioners.
Among other things, Hot N’ Sweet Concepts is asserting a U.S. Reg. No. 5,288,452 on MOTHER CLUCKERS, that Hot N’s Sweet acquired from Pass Restaurant Group, LLC after Hot N’ Sweet opened for business. The assignment states that the assignment came with the goodwill:
The question is, “did the goodwill in fact pass?” First, the Missouri entity uses MOTHER CLUCKER, while the Mississippi entity used MOTHER CLUCKERS. Second the logos of the two restaurants are quite different:
Third, the menus of the two restaurants are different:
The appearance of the restaurants are different:
Finally, being 809 miles apart, it seems unlikely that there is any overlap in customers. So while the assignment said that the goodwill passed with the registration, will MOTHER CLUCKER be able to show that it actually did?
Goodwill is more than a magic incantation to recite when transferring the mark, there must be some basis to conclude that the meaning of the mark to consumers also passed with the assignment. It’s one thing to acquire a potentially blocking mark to remove it as an obstancle,, but quite another to try to enforce it.
In Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, [2019-1567] (July 27, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the TTAB’s dismissal of Australian Therapeutic’s petition to cancel Naked TM’s U.S. Reg. No. 3,325,577 for the mark NAKED for condoms.
The Board found that, although no formal written agreement existed, the parties entered into an informal agreement through email communications and the parties’ actions under which Australian Therapeutics agreed it would not use or register its unregistered mark in the United States and that Naked could use and register its NAKED mark in the United States. The Board found that Australian Therepeutic led Naked to reasonably believe that Australian had abandoned its rights in the United States to the NAKED mark in connection with condoms.
The Federal Circuit said that the Board discussed the requirements to bring a cancellation proceeding under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 in terms of “standing” instead of a statutory entitlement to a cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1064, and proceeded to review de novo whether Australian has established entitlement to a statutory cause of action under § 1064. Section 1064 provides that a petitioner may seek cancellation of a registered trademark if the petitioner “believes that he is or will be damaged” by the registered trademark. § 1064.
The Federal Circuit said that the Board required that Australian establish proprietary rights in its unregistered mark in order to demonstrate a cause of action under § 1064, and said that this was error. Neither § 1064 nor Federal Circuit precedent requires that a petitioner have a proprietary right in its own mark in order to demonstrate a cause of action before the Board. For example, a trade association may have standing to oppose a mark’s registration without having proprietary rights in a mark.
The Federal Circuit said that the Board determined that Australian had contracted away its right to use and register its unregistered mark, but contracting away one’s rights to use a trademark does not preclude a petitioner from challenging a mark before the Board. The Federal Circuit noted that while an agreement could ultimately bar Australian from proving actual damage, § 1064 requires only a belief of damage.
The Federal Circuit concluded that neither § 1064 nor its precedent requires that a petitioner in a cancellation proceeding must prove that it has proprietary rights in its own mark in order to demonstrate a real interest in the proceeding and a belief of damage.
On the issue of a real interest and reasonable belief of damage,the Federal Circuit said that such an interest exists where the petitioner’s application has been refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion with the challenged mark, or where the petitioner is making and selling products with the challenged mark. The Federal Circuit said that Australian Therapeutic demonstrates a real interest in the proceeding because it twice filed an application to register its unregistered mark, and because the USPTO refused registration of both applications based on a likelihood of confusion with Naked’s registered mark. Australian’s applications for registration, the USPTO’s refusal of registration, and the USPTO’s suspension of prosecution support a conclusion that Australian Therapeutic meets the statutory requirements under § 1064.
Naked argued that Australian Therapeutic’s applications do not support a cause of action under § 1064 because Australian abandoned the first one and the second one was a post filing futile attempt to establish its standing. Naked further argued that “mere ownership of a pending application does not in itself provide standing to oppose other applications.” The Federal Circuit was not persuaded. The Federal Circuit noted that a trademark owner does not abandon her rights in a mark by abandoning prosecution. The Federal Circuit also noted Australian Therapeutic’s advertising and sales in the United States also demonstrate a real interest and reasonable belief of damage.
Naked challenged the sufficiency of Australian’s commercial activity because Australian’s marketing and advertising activities are “isolated,” “limited,” and “de minimis,” and its sales are “sporadic” and “nominal,” but the Federal Circuit said that Section 1064 does not impose a minimum threshold of commercial activity, and it declined to define one.
The Federal Circuit concluded that based on the facts established before the Board, Australian Therapeutic had a real interest in the cancellation proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements to seek cancellation of a registered trademark. We reverse and remand to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Today in U.S.P.T.O v. Booking.com B.V., the Supreme Court rejected the USPTO’s position that BOOKING.COM was unregistrable because it merely a combination of a generic term and a tld designator. The Supreme Court rejected the application of a per se rule against the registrability of compound marks based on generic terms, finding instead that consumer perception of the term should control. Judge Ginsberg noting that “[b]ecause ‘Booking.com’ is not a generic name to consumers, it is not generic.”
The Court distinguished Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598 (1888), where it held that a generic corporate designation added to a generic term does not confer trademark eligibility. The Court found the comparison faulty because of the nature of the internet — a “generic.com” term could convey to consumers a source-identifying characteristic: an association with a particular website.
The Court also rejected a per se rule that every generic term combined with a tld is automatically not generic, holding that whether any given generic.com term is generic “depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class.”
It will be interesting to see what the USPTO does with the application on remand. Will it require a disclaimer of the generic term “booking” and the tld “.com”? If so, then the applicant will have disclaimed the entire mark apart from itself.
It will also be interesting to see what booking.com will do with its registration. No reasonable competitor would consider using “booking.com” as their own brand, because they would be driving customers to booking.com. What is the point? Can booking.com tie up booking combined with other tld’s? Booking.com conceded that booking.com would be “weak” (Tr. of Oral Arg. 66). Indeed they will get a registration only because of the association of the term with a particular website. What of a booking.online (which presently appears to be available)? Would that create a likelihood of confusion, or would the fame of booking.com that won them a registration make such confusion unlikely? Competitors are entitled to use the generic term “booking”, what remains to be seen is how.
Australian motorcycle company (and film critics) Deus Ex Machina Motorcycles Pty. Ltd., has sued Warner Bros. and MGM Studios for trademark infringement for dressing the female lead in a jacket bearing their registered trademark “Deus ex Machina” in the “flop” “schmaltzy teen-style love story,” [Complaint, Para. 33] The Sun Is Also a Star.
The Sun Is Also a Star is a teen drama film directed by Ry Russo-Young and written by Tracy Oliver, based upon the young adult novel of the same name by Nicola Yoon. The phrase “deus ex machina” is essential to Yoon’s story, where its presence on the female protagonist Natasha’s backpack gets her noticed by Daniel and sets the love story in motion. The movie moved the phrase from the book’s backpack to a jacket. According to a 2019 article in MarieClaire.com, the jacket plays a critical role in the film. Costume designer Deirdra Govan, created the jacket from scratch in three-and-a-half weeks with the help of her mighty team of assistants, tailors, set costumers, and costume supervisor, working on roughly 15 different styles before landing on the one.
The Complaint sets up another First Amendment battle between artists and brand owners. Yoon no-doubt selected the phrase for its well known literary meaning; a heavily merchandised motorcycle company with a curated tough-guy image was probably the last think on her mind. Still, the movie moved the phrase from a backpack to a jacket. It also does not help that Charles Melton, who played teenager Daniel Bae in the movie, posed for pictures posted to social media to help promote the movie in which he wore clothing actually sold by Deus Ex Machina [Complaint, Para. 31].
It seems that Warner Bros. and MGM Studios have a reasonable First Amendment Rogers defense, and unless tough-guy biker boys are sneaking into schmaltzy teen-style love stories, a reasonable argument that there is no likelihood of confusion. While the movie may have flopped, hopefully their defense will be a block buster.
In re Forney Industries, Inc., [2019-1073] (April 8, 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the TTAB’s affirmance of the refusal to register Forney’s proposed mark on grounds that the proposed mark is of a type that can never be inherently distinctive.
On May 1, 2014, Forney filed Trademark Application No. 86/269,096 for its proposed mark for packaging for various welding and machining goods based on use in commerce under Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act.
The Examiner refused registration under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Lanham Act because the mark was not inherently distinctive. The examining attorney noted that such marks are registrable only on the Supplemental Register or on the Principal Register with sufficient proof of acquired distinctiveness.
Forney appealed this decision to the Board, arguing that its proposed mark should be treated as product packaging claiming multiple colors. According to Forney, its proposed mark is product packaging trade dress that may be inherently distinctive and, therefore, registrable without proof of acquired distinctiveness, but the Board affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal to register, treating the proposed mark as a color mark consisting of multiple colors applied to product packaging. The Board found that, when assessing marks consisting of color, there is no distinction between colors applied to products and colors applied to product packaging. The Board found no legal distinction between a mark consisting of a single color and one, such as Forney’s, consisting of multiple colors with-out additional elements, e.g., shapes or designs.
The Federal Circuit found that the Board erred in two ways: (1) by concluding that a color-based trade dress mark can never be inherently distinctive without differentiating between product design and product packaging marks; and (2) by concluding (presumably in the alternative) that product packaging marks that employ color cannot be inherently distinctive in the absence of an association with a well-defined peripheral shape or border.
The Federal Circuit held that color marks can be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging, depending upon the character of the color design. As the Supreme Court made clear, inherent distinctiveness turns on whether consumers would be predisposed to equate the color feature with the source. While it is true that color is usually perceived as ornamentation a distinct color-based product packaging mark can indicate the source of the goods to a consumer, and, therefore, can be inherently distinctive.
The Federal Circuit found that as a source indicator, Forney’s multi-color product packaging mark is more akin to the mark at issue in Two Pesos than those at issue in Qualitex and Wal-mart. The Federal Circuit said it falls firmly within the category of marks the Court described as potential source identifiers. Supreme Court precedent simply does not support the Board’s conclusion that a product packaging mark based on color can never be inherently distinctive. The Federal Circuit noted that it was not the only court to conclude that color marks on product packaging can be inherently distinctive.
The Federal Circuit concluded that Forney’s proposed mark comprises the color red fading into yellow in a gradient, with a horizontal black bar at the end of the gradient. It is possible that such a mark can be perceived by consumers to suggest the source of the goods in that type of packaging. Accordingly, rather than blanketly holding that colors alone cannot be inherently distinctive, the Board should have considered whether Forney’s mark satisfies the Federal Circuit’s criteria for inherent distinctiveness.
On the alternate grounds, the Federal Circuit said that without explaining why it was doing so, the Board found that a color may only be inherently distinctive when used in conjunction with a distinctive peripheral shape or border. The Federal Circuit said that “nothing in the case law mandates such a rule.”
In determining the inherent distinctiveness of trade dress, the question to be answered is whether the trade dress makes such an impression on consumers that they will assume the trade dress is associated with a particular source. To assess that question, the Board must look to the following factors: (1) whether the trade dress is a “common” basic shape or design; (2) whether it is unique or unusual in the particular field; (3) whether it is a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-known form of ornamentation for a particular class of goods viewed by the public as a dress or ornamentation for the goods; or, inapplicable here, (4) whether it is capable of creating a commercial impression distinct from the accompanying words. Id. (collecting cases). These factors are all different ways to determine whether it is reasonable to assume that customers in the relevant market will perceive the trade dress as an indicator of origin.
The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board erred in stating that a multi-color product packaging mark can never be inherently distinctive. To the extent the Board’s decision suggests that a multi-color mark must be associated with a specific peripheral shape in order to be inherently distinctive, that too, was error. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for the Board to consider, whether, for the uses proposed, Forney’s proposed mark is inherently distinctive under the Seabrook factors, considering the impression created by an overall view of the elements claimed.