Sarah Butler, Guardian; Toblerone shape not distinctive enough for trademark, Poundland claims
"Poundland has claimed Toblerone’s shape is no longer distinctive enough to be a valid trademark, in legal documents defending its right to launch a copycat bar.
Last month, the budget chain was forced to delay the launch of its Twin Peaks bar, which has two humps rather than the single peaks of Toblerone, after a legal warning from the brand’s owner, a Swiss division of Mondelēz...
Toblerone is one of Poundland’s most popular products, with 11m bars sold last year. But the retailer says it decided to bring out Twin Peaks “in response to the unfavourable reception” that greeted Toblerone’s new version with fewer chunks, launched last year."
Showing posts with label generic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label generic. Show all posts
Thursday, August 17, 2017
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."
Friday, January 29, 2016
‘Let’s Play’ enters the public domain as USPTO kills Sony’s trademark attempt; Digital Trends, 1/29/16
Danny Cowan, Digital Trends; ‘Let’s Play’ enters the public domain as USPTO kills Sony’s trademark attempt:
"After reviewing the matter, the USPTO found that “Let’s Play” was part of a larger vernacular, and is therefore ineligible for trademark. The new decision all but ensures that Sony’s attempted trademark is dead in the water. The McArthur Law Firm takes credit for the revised decision, noting that it submitted “over 50 examples of how Let’s Play is generic and descriptive of video game streaming” in order to thwart Sony’s trademark attempt. “The gaming community spoke, and the USPTO listened!” the firm announced this week."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)