Archive for June, 2010

Recent registrations

Posted by ipelton on: June 30th, 2010

Here is another sampling of recent registrations our clients have received from the USPTO, so readers can see real examples of brands and marks which are being protected:

(These are all public records – click on trademark name or logo to view USPTO records.)

  • KICKERZCafe and drive-thru cafe services featuring coffee and espresso based beverages, smoothies, and other specialty drinks
  • Cafe and drive-thru cafe services featuring coffee and espresso based beverages, smoothies, and other specialty drinks
  • SKY LAUNDROMATProviding washing and drying laundry facilities
  • BLUE DELTA H2OBottled water; drinking water
  • ZYKKORlens filters; lens adapters; camera flashers; photographic camera lenses; video camera lenses
  • MOTOR MINDVitamin fortified beverages that provide focus and cognitive enhancement

© 2010 Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The good news is that today the Wall Street Journal reports on trademark infringement.  See “Name Choices Spark Lawsuits” here.  The article focuses on the pressure small businesses face in defending – or deciding whether to defend – accusations of trademark infringement.  The article wisely notes that many businesses carelessly skip a full clearance search for a brand name prior to using it; such a search preformed and reviewed by an experienced trademark attorney could eliminate many potential claims by advising the business to steer clear of names with potential conflicts.

The bad news is that the article and the accompanying audio story from Wall Street Journal radio focuses on businesses that spent a lot to defend their claim or had to change their name, and fails to spend much time on two other related outcomes: small businesses that fight back and get the threatening party to back down or reach a reasonable resolution; and big businesses that overreach in their enforcement efforts, stifle small businesses, and cost businesses with legitimate non-infringing trademarks tens of thousands of dollars defending claims that have little or no merit.  This scenario, in my experience, is becoming more and more common. Big companies attempt to use their financial strength and attorneys to bring or threaten to bring trademark cases that have little merit because often the small business cannot afford to fight even if it its defenses are great. There is little or no money available to be had in defending an egregious claim, so a wrongly accused business has to weigh the cost of fighting against the cost of costs and harm done by changing the name. While theft of intellectual property no doubt costs the economy significantly, the over-enforcement of intellectual property also costs Americans jobs, revenue, and opportunities to innovate.

I will be covering this issue in more detail in future posts, including my upcoming report from Senate Hearings this week featuring testimony from U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel.

A funny (or not-so-funny anymore to the lawyers who sent it) example of overreaching attempts to enforce trademarks:

National Pork Board’s attorneys sent a cease and desist letter to a website regarding their fake April Fools Day product: canned Unicorn meat, “the new white meat.” The lawyers apparently didn’t realize it was fake, having not studied the website nor the general lack of “unicorn meat.”

You can’t make this stuff up!

Don’t miss a blog post – subscribe via email or RSS

Posted by ipelton on: June 21st, 2010

If you want to make sure you don’t miss a post (about 3x per week), you can have new posts sent to you via email or subscribe via your RSS reader of choice:

Examples in good branding from National Small Business Week

Posted by ipelton on: June 18th, 2010

I recently received a copy of a newspaper supplement commemorating National Small Business Week called “From Beginners to Bigshots.” The paper features profiles of several successful small businesses. A common theme among most of businesses profiled: creative brand names that are neither descriptive nor arbitrary – they are suggestive and provide a hint of the services provided. In addition, many have creative logos and/or slogans.

For example:

  • MEI Technologies Inc. – Merging Excellence and Innovation – an advanced technology company serving  civil, commercial and defense industries. [Two USPTO registrations: name and logo.]

Lesson: Having a unique, strong, protected and creative brand name provides a business with a better chance to succeed. Sure, some successful companies have bland names, and some creatively named businesses fail, but all things being equal having a memorable and creative name, logo and slogan can give any business a leg up on the competition.

smar(tm)ark newsletter 1.4

Posted by ipelton on: June 17th, 2010

The June issue of our newsletter is available here.

Topics include:

  • Trademark Tip: Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents, Oh My!
  • Trademarks in the News: World Cup
  • Thoughts on the BP brand

Comments, questions, and suggestions for future topics are welcome!