Victoria Kennedy , EUROGAMER ; The Day Before developer forgets to trademark game, delays release for nine months
"Developer Fntastic has announced The Day Before will not be releasing as expected on 1st March. Instead, its zombie MMO is now set for release on 10th November.
The reason for this fairly sizable delay? The developer claims it did not trademark the game's name and now someone else has done so instead."
BILL MURPHY JR., Inc.;
Let's start by explaining where to look: Go to the website for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Click through to the Trademark Electronic Search System.
Then, look up your competitors. Or else, search for companies that strike you as innovative and creative, or that are big enough to invest a lot into research and design and marketing.
You might be amazed at what you'll find."
LIAM MCGUIRE, ScreenRant ; Marvel's New Spider-Man is Taking The Name from Miles Morales
"The Beyond Corporation is using Marvel's newest Spider-Man to make sure Miles Morales doesn't continue using his usual superhero name as a potential legal battle continues to build up. In Amazing Spider-Man #81 by Marvel Comics, the corporation tells Ben Reilly needs him to protect the Spider-Man name and that he's contractually obligated to enforce their trademark against Brooklyn's web-slinger. Reilly begrudgingly agrees, setting up a conflict between Marvel's new Spider-Man and Miles Morales."
KSAT.com; Papa’s Burgers changes name after trademark trouble with Houston’s Pappas Restaurants
"A beloved San Antonio burger joint has officially rebranded itself after a recent “hurtful” trademark issue with a Houston restaurant chain.
Papa’s Burgers owner Robert Walker announced the restaurant’s new name on Friday, which is “The Good News Burgers.”
The name change comes after the restaurant received a cease and desist notice from Pappas Restaurants, due to the similarities in their restaurant titles.
Walker previously told KSAT that he filed a trademark for Papa’s Burgers, but before doing so, he reached out to the Houston restaurateur “out of respect so that it wouldn’t be an issue.” However, at last check, he didn’t hear back."
"The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that might decide whether the government can deny Washington's NFL team a trademark because it has deemed the team name is offensive. The court granted certiorari on Lee V. Tam. If you remember, The Slants, an Asian-American rock band, sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because it refused to trademark their name saying it proved offensive. In December of last year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that the band's name was private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment."
"Tabassum Gazala Khan has gone on a spending spree since July in an apparent bid to acquire valuable commercial IP linked to the UFC star. Ms Khan spent €3,150 applying for an EU trademark for 'Conor McGregor The Notorious' - just days after shelling out Stg£500 (€590) on three UK trademark applications for 'The Notorious Conor McGregor', 'Conor The Notorious McGregor' and 'Conor McGregor The Notorious'. She has also registered the following websites: conormcgregor thenotorious.com, conorthenotoriousmcgregor.com and thenotoriousconormcgregor.net The EU trademark application covers 17 classes of IP, which would enable Ms Khan to cash in on McGregor's name on products including aftershave, computer games, mugs and beer. Legal experts predict McGregor will apply immediately to have the application declared invalid on the basis of 'bad faith'."
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington made the ruling in a case involving an Asian-American dance-rock band that sought to register a trademark for its provocative name, the Slants. The court said the First Amendment “forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others.” Writing for the majority, Kimberly A. Moore, a judge on the appeals court, said: “It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys.”... Still, Tuesday’s ruling was considered a major one in trademark law — the striking down of a provision of the nearly 70-year-old Lanham Act that deals with disparaging or offensive trademarks. “The majority opinion is a very broad rejection of the proposition that the federal government can refuse registration or use of a trademark based on whether certain groups find the mark to be disparaging,” said Jeremy Sheff, a law professor at St. John’s University School of Law who specializes in intellectual property. “It was exactly on that basis that the Redskins’ marks were canceled.” Whatever happens in the appeals court to the Redskins’ registered trademarks, the team’s use of its name is not in jeopardy. Although it symbolizes racism and intolerance to some, and has inspired groups to demand that it be replaced, the Redskins’ owner, Daniel Snyder, has vowed never to drop it. He has fought a public battle to prove the name does not offend all Native Americans. And he has the backing of the N.F.L., which has been paying the costs of defending the trademarks."
