Generic Fair Use

... where pop culture meets intellectual property law

Tag: trademark (page 1 of 3)

That’s Not How Any of This Works! Cultural Phrases and the Failure to Function as a Trademark

As of this morning, there are seven (7) pending applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register some variation of OK BOOMER as a trademark.[1] Thanks in part to the New York Times article in October, the casually dismissive phrase “ok, boomer” went from a limited internet audience to a mocking cultural term du jour. Inspired would-be entrepreneurs rushed to file applications with the USPTO to “own” this phrase as a trademark.

It is unlikely any of these applications will mature into a trademark registration. Simply put, this is not how trademarks work. Following in the footsteps of such whimsical terms like COVFEFE, TACO TUESDAY, and ALTERNATIVE FACTS, most of these alleged marks will fail to acquire a registration from the USPTO.

Because they almost certainly fail to function as trademarks.

Continue reading

Top 10 Misconceptions about LeBron and Ohio State’s Trademark Filings

Trademark law is quirky. Look no further than the attention being given to recent filings to the USPTO by LeBron James and Ohio State University. TACO TUESDAY and THE. These legal matters are receiving substantial media coverage. But the subsequent news blurbs, articles, and media stories all seem to have one important thing in common:

Nearly everyone is wrong about what is going on here.

At this point, I expect ESPN and Darren Rovell to fail at describing the intricate proceedings of trademark matters. That much is a given. It is everyone else piling on these stories that is making me nervous. Accordingly, to address these issues, and because the internet practically runs on top 10 lists, here are 10 misconceptions about LeBron and Ohio State’s trademark filings.

Continue reading

Eye of the Beholder: The differences between “trademark infringement” and “copyright infringement”

July 31, 2019

The music industry has been in the news a lot recently regarding intellectual property rights and related disputes. Just this week, a federal jury determined that Katy Perry was liable for copyright infringement. This tracks with the ongoing trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Gibson Brands, Inc., which continues to fascinate me.

Though in my research of these various topics and the feedback I have received from writing about these legal issues, I have learned that the terms “trademark” and “copyright” are being used interchangeably by the public. This is troubling because they are absolutely not the same thing.[1] I would therefore like to take the opportunity to explain the differences in these two legal doctrines. Because not all “infringements” are identical acts.

Continue reading

The Shape of Things: Gibson sues Dean Guitars for Trademark Infringement

In May 2019, Gibson Brands, Inc. sued Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and counterfeiting.[1] Armadillo may not be a well known name, but it is affiliated with the guitar brands Dean Guitars and Luna Guitars, which compete with Gibson. Gibson is one of the most prominent names in the electric guitar industry, alongside Fender. In this lawsuit, Gibson accuses Armadillo/Dean of infringing at least four “body shapes” of its electric guitar models: the Flying V, the Explorer, the ES, and the SG, each of which Gibson cites as a registered trademark.[2]

This case caught my attention because I am a guitar player and I often write about music and the music industry as it relates to trademarks and copyrights. Here are just a few examples. I do not personally own any Gibson-branded guitars (they are too heavy in the neck), but I do own one acoustic Dean Guitar – though not one of the types that is accused of infringement in this case. With regard to electric guitars, I prefer Schecter Guitars. Always a Hellraiser™.

Armadillo has not yet responded with an Answer to this lawsuit, but I anticipate Dean Guitars will present a substantial defense to all of Gibson’s claims. It is important to note that this is not a patent case. This is not about who “invented” the particular shape or style of an electric guitar. Any patent rights for these designs would have expired decades ago. Instead, this dispute concerns trademarks. It essentially seeks to determine whether a particular shape of a guitar evokes a specific source in the minds of the relevant consuming public. With regard to the guitar industry, there is a long history associated with these particular “body shapes” and how they impact pop culture and the competition between the most popular brands and manufacturers.

Continue reading

Clawing Back Copyrights?

Kawhi Leonard sues Nike over the copyright to a logo

June 4, 2019

On June 3, 2019, Kawhi Leonard, a professional basketball player currently with the Toronto Raptors, sued Nike over the rights to a logo.[1] Leonard contends he personally created the logo and owns the copyright to it, but that in 2017, without his knowledge or consent, Nike filed an application to register the copyright to this logo.[2] From October 2011 through September 30, 2018, Leonard was a sponsored athlete under the Nike® brand. According to the lawsuit, he signed a standard “Men’s Pro Basketball Contract” with Nike to be a sponsored athlete. Throughout the duration of this relationship, Leonard endorsed Nike products and Nike used Kawhi’s name and image to promote its products.

This is why the purported rights to the “Leonard Logo” are relevant.

Leonard’s lawsuit seeks to resolve who owns the copyright and possible trademark rights in a logo he claims to have designed himself. The interesting twist is that even if Kawhi created the logo by himself – that fact alone does not resolve the dispute.

Continue reading

Put Your Name On It! President Trump and IP Ownership

What does President Trump own?

April 5, 2019

If there is one singular, defining character trait of Donald J. Trump, it is this: he really, really likes putting the TRUMP name on things. Hotels, casinos, residential towers, television shows, books, golf courses, beauty pageants, steaks, universities, business plans, and on and on. It is kind of his thing. And he is exceptionally good at marketing the Trump name when he uses it.

The moment Donald Trump ran for president, and was subsequently elected – the ways he could use market that TRUMP brand grew exponentially. And I do not use the term “brand” lightly. Because for someone like me, the underlying question is this: what IP rights in his name and likeness does Donald Trump still own? Most recently, Trump has put the TRUMP brand on images of the White House. These images are now subsequently being sold online and at his various hotels.

I have written about some of these issues before,[1] and once again, I will not try to address any issues with the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Nor will this article be about the purported morality of such things, but instead an analysis of what IP rights are available for protection. Can President Trump own copyrights of his image? Can President Trump use the TRUMP name as a trademark and protect it like a private citizen? Can President Trump use White House and U.S. government imagery in tandem with his name and assert personal rights in these products? It is not such an easy answer.

Continue reading

Someone should petition to cancel the SUPER BOWL® trademark registration

Last night, the Los Angeles Rams and the New England Patriots played Super Bowl LIII. It was one of the worst exhibitions of professional football in a long time, and certainly the most boring Super Bowl to date. Enough people will be writing about that game today, but I see it as an opportunity to further discuss the NFL’s SUPER BOWL® trademark. And this is why:

The NFL is a known trademark bully. Someone should petition to cancel its SUPER BOWL® trademark registration. And I think I have found a way for this petition to be successful. The NFL fraudulently acquired the registration and it should be canceled.

Continue reading

Pay to Play: Nirvana sues Marc Jacobs over clothing line

January 2, 2019

On Friday, December 28, 2018, Nirvana, LLC[1] sued Marc Jacobs International, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Nieman Marcus for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act.[2] The crux of the dispute is over a new line of clothing being introduced by Marc Jacobs dubbed “Bootleg Redux Grunge” that he intends to sell to the public at Saks Fifth Avenue and Nieman Marcus stores. In short, these “grunge” clothes are being marketed to a high-end socioeconomic demographic that is antithetical to everything Kurt Cobain and Nirvana stood for. Because of course they are.

The real dispute is over the appropriation of the iconic Nirvana “smiley face” logo and what Nirvana contends is a derivative, non-transformative use by Marc Jacobs. I will not go too in-depth on the specific claims other than to say: yes, this is an infringement and Marc Jacobs is most certainly trying to associate this clothing line with famous Nirvana trademarks and copyrighted works. It is shameless. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Yes, including Nirvana’s own lawyers – for reasons I will address.

Of course, I am biased. Nirvana is my favorite musical group of all-time and hearing “Smells Like Teen Spirit” for the first time when I was 14 years old was nothing short of a life-changing experience. Like millions of others, I also own one of the famous “smiley face” t-shirts and other merchandise bearing that image. This is a blog about trademark and copyright law, meanwhile – so let us break down the claims made against Marc Jacobs.

Continue reading

Be Prepared… to be sued for trademark infringement

The Girls Scouts sue the Boy Scouts for trademark infringement and dilution

The Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1910 and has operated under the shorthand name of the “Boy Scouts” from the outset. On May 2, 2018, however, the Boy Scouts of America announced a new name for the association: “Scouts BSA.” Lost in the cultural dispute over whether the Boy Scouts should have included girls and what this means for the Boy Scouts as an organization – a trademark battle emerged.

On November 6, 2018, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America sued the Boy Scouts of America in federal court[1] for trademark infringement, unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, along with a request to cancel or modify the registration of the SCOUTS® trademark which the Boy Scouts previously acquired from an unaffiliated university.

The moment the Boy Scouts of America adopted the SCOUTS or SCOUTS BSA marks to include girls into their ranks, this conflicted with the pre-existing and concurrent uses of the Girl Scouts’ own GIRL SCOUTS® trademark registration(s) and related marks.

An interesting trademark dispute therefore presents itself to us for analysis.

Continue reading

There is no such thing as a “trademark application”

Trademark law is a nuanced discipline. Word choice matters greatly. The use of a particular word, a certain combination of words, the exact construction of a phrase, and/or the precise arrangement of particular terms – each of these can affect the validity and enforceability of a trademark.[1] It is important.

Last week, I was in the middle of a trademark infringement trial in federal court. Opposing counsel colloquially referred to official certificates of registration as “trademarks” and the underlying applications as “trademark applications.” Each time I had to stand up and object. For one simple, yet legally necessary reason:

There is no such thing as a “trademark application.”

Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2019 Generic Fair Use

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑