Ben Reilly And Miles Morales Continue Clash Over Spider-Man Trademark; Bleeding Cool, December 15, 2021

Rich Johnston, Bleeding Cool; Ben Reilly And Miles Morales Continue Clash Over Spider-Man Trademark

"You couldn't have planned it better, could you? On the 26th of August, Patrick S Ditko, the brother of the late Steve Ditko and administrator of his estate, registered two notices of copyright termination against Marvel Entertainment for the first appearances of Doctor Strange and Spider-Man in comic books. And in the comic books, The Beyond Corporation is fighting to steal/keep the trademark to Spider-Man, granting it to their Peter Parker replacement Ben Reilly, but denying it from Miles Morales."

Cleveland Baseball Will Share ‘Guardians’ Name With Roller Derby Team; The New York Times, November 16, 2021

Neil Vigdor, The New York Times ; Cleveland Baseball Will Share ‘Guardians’ Name With Roller Derby Team

The settlement of a federal lawsuit will allow the Major League Baseball franchise to move forward with renaming its team, amid a reckoning over symbols of racism.

"Call it a shared guardianship.

Cleveland’s Major League Baseball franchise and a local roller derby team announced on Tuesday that they had reached a settlement in a naming dispute that had escalated to a federal lawsuit. They will both be called the Guardians...

In the lawsuit, the roller derby team, which is based in the Cleveland suburb of Parma, Ohio, said it was “inconceivable” that a baseball franchise worth more than $1 billion would not have performed a Google search for the name Cleveland Guardians. If it did, the lawsuit said, it would have found the website for the roller derby team, which operates as a nonprofit organization."

Spider-Man trademark battle unfolds in comics as a real life copyright dispute brews in real life; gamesradar+, November 10, 2021

Chris Arrant  , gamesradar+; Spider-Man trademark battle unfolds in comics as a real life copyright dispute brews in real life

"While a legal battle is brewing over the copyright of the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man, a similar trademark battle is beginning to unfold in inside the actual comic books at Marvel."

Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument; C-SPAN, April 15, 2019

April 15, 2019, C-SPAN; 

"Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Iancu v. Brunetti, a case concerning trademark law and the ban of “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks. Erik Brunetti founded a streetwear brand called “FUCT” back in 1990. Since then, he’s attempted to trademark it but with no success. Under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) can refuse an application if it considers it to be “immoral” or “scandalous” and that’s exactly what happened here. The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board also reviewed the application and they too agreed that the mark was “scandalous” and very similar to the word “fucked.” The board also cited that “FUCT” was used on products with sexual imagery and public interpretation of it was “an unmistakable aura of negative sexual connotations.” Mr. Brunetti’s legal team argued that this is in direct violation of his first amendment rights to free speech and private expression. Furthermore, they said speech should be protected under the First Amendment even if one is in disagreement with it. This case eventually came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They ruled in favor of Mr. Brunetti. The federal government then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The justices will now decide whether the Lanham Act banning “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional."

US Trademark Office Approves Application To Register The Shape Of A Burger; Mondaq, January 31, 2019

Donna A. Tobin, Mondaq; US Trademark Office Approves Application To Register The Shape Of A Burger

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")  recently approved registration of the irregular shape of a hamburger patty as a trademark, meaning that the owner of the mark, Bubba Foods LLC (Bubba's) had made a sufficient showing to the USPTO that the below shape of its burger was not functional and that the shape itself serves to identify Bubba Burgers as the source of  burgers so shaped. 

Such marks, known as "product configuration marks" are less common than more typical trademarks, such as names, slogans or logos. However, while the process is not an easy one, such non- traditional trademarks, which can also protect aspects of a product such as smells, sounds and the appearance of a retail establishment, can confer powerful rights on an owner."

Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court; The New York Times, January 21, 2019

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court apparently thinks the question is more complicated, as it agreed this month to hear the government’s appeal. If nothing else, the court can use Mr. Brunetti’s case to sort out just what it meant to say in the 2017 decision, which ruled for an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants. (The decision also effectively allowed the Washington Redskins football team to register its trademarks.)

The justices were unanimous in ruling that the prohibition on disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. But they managed to split 4 to 4 in most of their reasoning, making it hard to analyze how the decision applies in the context of the ban on scandalous terms."

Hasbro trademarks Play-Doh's distinctive "sweet, slightly musky" scent; CBS, May 18, 2018

CBS; Hasbro trademarks Play-Doh's distinctive "sweet, slightly musky" scent

"Hasbro has trademarked the scent of Play-Doh. The toy company on Friday announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has recognized Play-Doh's distinctive smell with a registered trademark, something rarely issued for a scent."

The Supreme Court Explains Trademark Registration, And It's The Best Ever; Forbes, July 10, 2017

Jess Collen, Forbes; The Supreme Court Explains Trademark Registration, And It's The Best Ever

"Much has been said and written in recent weeks about the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Slants case (Did The Supreme Court Slants Case Just Approve A Big FU To Trademark Owners?), by striking down provisions of federal trademark law. The court has also provided us with perhaps the most authoritative explanation of the history of United States trademark registration ever written.

Whether you run a startup, small business or a company on Forbes World’s Biggest Companies list, this should be required reading. Here below, an abridged discussion of trademark registration in this country, courtesy of Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States (in own his words, and citing prior Court decisions and trademark law experts):"

Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.; Washington Post, June 21, 2017

Robert S. Chang, Washington Post; Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.

"Unfortunately, Reyna’s hypothetical is an actuality of sorts. In Florida and other states, gun store owners have placed signs on their establishments declaring themselves to be a “Muslim Free Zone.” As the owner of one of the stores, Florida Gun Supply, said: “My goal is to make sure they don’t feel welcome here so I don’t have the need to discriminate in the first place.

Following Matal v. Tam, nothing will prevent the owner from obtaining federal registration of “Muslim Free Zone” as a trademark, accomplishing through speech what he might not be able to do through direct denial of service. For businesses not covered by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nothing will prevent the creation and federal registration of trademarks such as “No Gays Allowed” or, for that matter, “Whites Only.”

The federal government, though, should not be required to register these trademarks. The government should not be required to participate in discrimination.

This is where we are following the Supreme Court decision. This is the mischief that will come."

Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag; Dallas Morning News, June 19, 2017

Julieta Chiquillo, Dallas Morning News; 

Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag

"When Alito struck down efforts to equate the Oregon case with the one in Texas, he highlighted three points:

First, license plates have long been used by states to convey messages. Second, license plates are usually identified with the state because they are considered a form of government ID, one that is manufactured by the state and generally designed by the state. Third, Texas "maintained direct control" of the messages in its plates.

"None of these factors are present in this case," Alito wrote in The Slants opinion."

Asian-American Rock Band Denied Trademark For ‘Disparaging’ Name; KDKA.com, April 27, 2017

Julie Grant, KDKA.com; 

Asian-American Rock Band Denied Trademark For ‘Disparaging’ Name

"The government’s position is that the trademark registration program and trademarks generally have not historically served as vehicles for expression; they are meant to identify the source. The law is set forth in the Lanham Act which states that registration can be refused if a trademark is disparaging. Dr. Rooksby believes the provision is too arbitrary and will be invalidated by the court.

According to Rooksby, “I think Simon Tam should win the case. They’ve made a compelling argument that this provision of the trademark law is unconstitutional and this is because it’s too arbitrary. How do you apply it? What is something that’s disparaging?”

While the court weighs the arguments, the band has released an EP titled “The Band Who Must Not Be Named.” A decision is expected by the end of June."

Four Reasons EMC Was First To Use A Trademark And Still Lost Its Case; Forbes, April 19, 2017

Jess Collen, Forbes; 

Four Reasons EMC Was First To Use A Trademark And Still Lost Its Case

"Do you get superior rights to use a trademark when you are the first to file for registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office?

Not necessarily. A lot of companies know this already. The earliest date of first use usually prevails, even over a federal trademark registration. Sometimes, the question of “who did what, and when?” is difficult to sort out. To earn trademark rights, you must use the mark in a way that creates a sufficient association between your trademark, and your product, in the minds of the purchasing public. Not all use is created equal."