Trademark

Subscribe to Trademark via RSS

Over the last several months, we have written about the risks of publishing ads or engaging in promotional activities that refer to the SUPER BOWL® or MARCH MADNESS® without first asking the NFL or the NCAA, respectively, for permission to use those marks.  With millions of viewers about to tune into the OLYMPIC® games in Rio this August, we similarly remind our readers that any Olympic trademarks, symbols or other branded content should not be used in advertising and marketing campaigns across any media platforms (on-air, websites, social media sites, in hashtags, apps, etc.) except by authorized advertisers.  And, for the reasons we discuss below, dealing with these marks deserve an Olympic-size dollop of caution.

We’ve written before (here and here) how Olympic sponsors pay big bucks for the rights to sponsor the Olympics, and to get exclusivity to associate their brands with the games. Thus, the sponsors guard their territory carefully, as do the Olympic organizations whose ability to stage the games is dependent on such sponsorship.  Numerous small businesses, nonprofits, and even individuals have been on the receiving end of cease and desist letters, including, for example, a knitting group that used the term RAVELYMPICS for a knitting competition, a charcuterie in Portland named OLYMPIC PROVISIONS, and a Philadelphia sub shop named OLYMPIC GYRO.
Continue Reading Avoiding Olympic Hassles – Trademark and Other Legal Protections Limit the Use of Olympics, Paralympics and Related Terms in Advertising, Marketing, and Promotions

Can the name of a state be trademarked so that no one else can use it in a particular line of business? Last week, in connection with the denial of the trademark application filed by the producers of the podcast SERIAL, we wrote about the difficulty of trademarking brands that are descriptive of the product that they promote. What could be more descriptive than the name of a place where the product originates? Yet on Sunday, the NY Times ran a front page story about a legal moonshiner in Kentucky who is being sued by the University of Kentucky for using the name KENTUCKY MIST on shirts and hats to promote his craft moonshine. The University claimed that it owns the trademark for the word “Kentucky” when used on clothing. Can they really do that? Does a media company need to worry about branding a program featuring the name of the geographic location in which they operate?

It depends. Trademark law is, among other things, designed to protect consumers from confusion. When the Trademark Office is analyzing a new federal trademark application, it will look to see whether a mark is “confusingly similar” to any existing registrations or pending applications. As part of this analysis, it will analyze the similarity of the marks, the types of goods and services offered in connection with the marks, and the channels of trade used to sell or promote the goods/services. If a proposed mark is too close on these fronts to a registered mark, the Office may deny the application (or in the case of a lawsuit, a court may find merit to the infringement claim). This can happen even if the mark incorporates a descriptive term, like a geographic area. Does this mean that broadcasters are precluded from incorporating the name of their state in a program title or station tagline if there is an existing registration for that state name? Thankfully, no – but it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do your due diligence before adopting your mark. Below are a few tips to help you assess whether your proposed mark is at risk of getting into trademark hot water.
Continue Reading Can You Trademark A State’s Name? Can Such a Trademark Affect a Broadcast Program Title or Other Product Names?

This article was written by two new contributors to the Blog, trademark attorneys Radhika “Ronnie” Raju and Kelly Donohue.

According to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the answer is “No,” as the PTO recently refused an application by the producer of the podcast to register the mark SERIAL for an ongoing audio program, finding that the mark was too “descriptive” to be registered (the decision and related documents can be found here – note it is a relatively big file). This case demonstrates the need for companies and other content creators to be creative in choosing the brands by which their works will be known, as a name that is too generic may face hurdles like this one when the creator tries to protect its brand through a federal trademark registration. Media companies all need to think carefully about program names and other brands to be sure that they can be protected – especially if they hit it big.

SERIAL is the Peabody award-winning podcast from the creators of the public radio program This American Life. The podcast, narrated by journalist Sarah Koening, is a long form story, told over the course of multiple episodes, that looks into the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee and the resulting conviction of her former boyfriend, Adnan Masud Syed. Since its launch in October 2014, Season 1 has been downloaded in the United States over 80 million times, with episodes still being downloaded at a clip of over a 100,000 times a month. Season 2 of SERIAL just concluded last week. Media observers have called SERIAL a phenomenon which fueled the 2014 podcast renaissance. Given that it is so well-known and successful, why did the PTO refuse to register the name of this groundbreaking podcast?
Continue Reading SERIAL Trademark Denied – Should One of the Most Popular Podcasts Ever Be Able to Protect Its Name?

Two months ago, I wrote here about the risks of publishing ads or engaging in promotional activities that refer to the Super Bowl” without approval of the NFL. Now, with the NCAA Basketball Tournament about to begin, broadcasters, publishers and other businesses need to be multiply wary about potential claims arising from their use terms and logos associated with the tournament, including March Madness,® The Big Dance,® Final Four® or Elite Eight,® each of which is a federally registered trademark.

The NCAA Aggressively Polices the Use of its Trademarks

It has been estimated that, last year, the NCAA earned $900 million in revenue associated with the NCAA Basketball tournament. Moreover, its returns from the tournament have historically grown each year. Most of this income comes from broadcast licensing fees. It also has a substantial amount of revenue from licensing March Madness® and its other marks for use by advertisers. As part of those licenses, the NCAA agrees to stop non-authorized parties from using any of the marks. Indeed, if the NCAA did not actively police the use of its marks by unauthorized companies, advertisers might not feel the need to get a license or, at least, to pay as much as they do for the license. Thus, the NCAA has a strong incentive to put on a full court press to prevent non-licensees from associating their goods and services with the NCAA tournament through unauthorized use of its trademarks.
Continue Reading It’s March Madness! Know the NCAA’s Rulebook or Risk A Foul Call Against the Unauthorized Use of Its Trademarks

With the Super Bowl fast approaching, broadcasters and other media companies are planning advertising and promotions around the big game.  Here is some advice to broadcasters from Mitchell Stabbe, a lawyer from my firm who has spent over 30 years counseling businesses on trademark issues, about legal cautions to consider in finalizing your plans:

In addition to the monies it receives annually for the right to broadcast the Super Bowl, the NFL receives more than $1 billion in income from licensing the use of the SUPER BOWL trademark and logo.  Not surprisingly, it is extremely aggressive in protecting its golden goose from anything it views as unauthorized efforts to trade off the goodwill associated with the game.  Accordingly, with the coin toss almost upon us, advertisers need to take special care before publishing ads or engaging in promotional activities that refer to the Super Bowl.  Broadcasters and media organizations have slightly greater latitude than other businesses, but still need to wary of engaging in activities that the NFL may view as trademark or copyright infringement.  (These risks also apply to the use of “Final Four” or “March Madness” in connection with the upcoming NCAA Basketball Tournament.)

Simply put, the NFL views any commercial activity that uses or refers to the Super Bowl to draw attention as a violation of its trademark rights.  Many of the activities challenged by the league undoubtedly deserve a yellow flag.  However, the NFL’s rule book defines trademark violations very broadly.  If anyone were willing to throw the red flag to challenge the league’s position, a review from the booth might reverse some of those calls.  But, unless you are ready to take on the NFL in that fight, proceed with caution. 
Continue Reading As The Golden Super Bowl Approaches, Be Aware of The NFL’s Efforts to Protect Its Golden Goose from Unauthorized Ads and Promotions

A recent Court of Appeals decision that could have an impact on the Washington Redskins trademark dispute about their team name, is covered in the following article by my law partner, Mitchell Stabbe, who specializes in trademark law.  He writes about a case where the Court determined that a trademark rule that has led to the denial or rejection of trademarks deemed to be disparaging was an unconstitutional infringement on Free Speech.  This is the first of what we hope will be many articles on this blog from Mitch and his team of trademark specialists: 

In a decision that could have a significant impact on the well-publicized dispute over the REDSKINS trademark, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the prohibition against federal registration of disparaging trademarks violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional.  The case involved an appeal from the denial by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) of an application by Simon Shaio Tam to register the mark THE SLANTS for an Asian-American band, which selected the name in order to make a statement about racial and cultural issues.  The PTO had found that, regardless of intent, the likely meaning of phrase THE SLANTS may be disparaging to a substantial composite of persons of Asian descent.

Each of the previous appeals affirmed the finding that the mark is disparaging, and held that the issue of constitutionality could not be addressed because of a binding precedent issued by the Federal Circuit in 1981.  That precedent could only be reversed if all of the Federal Circuit judges (as opposed to a panel of three judges, which decides most cases) ruled together.  The court agreed to consider the question whether the prohibition against disparaging marks is constitutional.  In a 9-3 ruling, the Federal Circuit reversed its own precedent and concluded that the statutory prohibition violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional.  The court reasoned that, by denying registration to disparaging marks, the Government was targeting speech based on the content of the message conveyed by the mark, which is almost always a violation of the First Amendment requirement that the Government make no laws abridging freedom of speech.  Even though the lack of a federal registration does not limit the right to use a mark, the court ruled that denying registration would restrict freedom of speech by creating a disincentive to the adoption of disparaging trademarks because the markholders would be denied the “truly significant and financially valuable benefits” of registration.  (We will address those benefits in an upcoming post.)
Continue Reading Court of Appeals Rules that Prohibition Against Federal Registration of Disparaging Trademarks is Unconstitutional Restriction of Free Speech