Rachelle Hampton, Slate; A Trademark Attorney Explains Why the Former Lady Antebellum Is Suing the Black Singer Lady A
"Trademark rights are what the Lady A dispute centers on. As we discussed
today, trademark rights arise from use of any word, phrase, logo,
symbol, etc., as a source indicator in connection with the sale of
specific goods or services, like Greyhound for bus services or Dasani for bottled water or Tony the Tiger for cereal or a [Nike] swoosh for athletic apparel."
Showing posts with label US trademark law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US trademark law. Show all posts
Sunday, July 12, 2020
Saturday, April 22, 2017
COMIC LEGENDS: WHY CAN’T BATMAN’S BUTTON APPEAR IN EUROPE?; Comic Book Resources, April 21, 2017
Brian Cronin, Comic Book Resources; COMIC LEGENDS: WHY CAN’T BATMAN’S BUTTON APPEAR IN EUROPE?
"It all goes back to Franklin Loufrani, a Frenchmen who trademarked the famous “Smiley” face in Europe in the early 1970s. It had been around before that in the United States, but no one had bothered to trademark it. Franklin Loufrani did, though, as he used it in his newspaper. He then formed a company, the Smiley Company, to manage the trademark. When his son took it over in 1996, he really began to push the trademark and made the company a very successful company through the licensing of the trademarked image in Europe.
In the United States, though, the Smiley face had been used for years in various places. Wal-Mart, in particular, used it all over their stores. In 1997, Smiley Company tried to begin enforcing their trademark in the United States, which led to a long, drawn-put lawsuit with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart even began to phase out the Smiley Face mark from their stores because they believed that they would ultimately lose (or, if they DID lose, they didn’t want to be unprepared).
In 2008, however, a United States Patents and Trademark Court ruled that the Smiley face mark was too generic to be trademarked and that the mark was in the public domain in the United States, which is how it had been treated for years up until that point. However, the mark remains protected by EUROPEAN trademark law."
"It all goes back to Franklin Loufrani, a Frenchmen who trademarked the famous “Smiley” face in Europe in the early 1970s. It had been around before that in the United States, but no one had bothered to trademark it. Franklin Loufrani did, though, as he used it in his newspaper. He then formed a company, the Smiley Company, to manage the trademark. When his son took it over in 1996, he really began to push the trademark and made the company a very successful company through the licensing of the trademarked image in Europe.
In the United States, though, the Smiley face had been used for years in various places. Wal-Mart, in particular, used it all over their stores. In 1997, Smiley Company tried to begin enforcing their trademark in the United States, which led to a long, drawn-put lawsuit with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart even began to phase out the Smiley Face mark from their stores because they believed that they would ultimately lose (or, if they DID lose, they didn’t want to be unprepared).
In 2008, however, a United States Patents and Trademark Court ruled that the Smiley face mark was too generic to be trademarked and that the mark was in the public domain in the United States, which is how it had been treated for years up until that point. However, the mark remains protected by EUROPEAN trademark law."
Thursday, January 12, 2017
What the NHL’s trademark fiasco can teach you about brand preparedness; Financial Post, 1/12/17
Chad Finkelstein, Financial Post; What the NHL’s trademark fiasco can teach you about brand preparedness:
"Whether the USPTO’s position will hold up in the United States (and what the fate of the Canadian trademarks applications are) remains to be seen, but the situation should be viewed by trademark owners and prospective trademark owners as a warning about not taking proactive steps to get trademarks registered. The longer an unregistered trademark is in use, the more it will cost to go through a rebranding."
"Whether the USPTO’s position will hold up in the United States (and what the fate of the Canadian trademarks applications are) remains to be seen, but the situation should be viewed by trademark owners and prospective trademark owners as a warning about not taking proactive steps to get trademarks registered. The longer an unregistered trademark is in use, the more it will cost to go through a rebranding."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)