Archives For Trademark Disputes

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) – Strong Medicine for Trademark Trolls

July 17, 2017 — Leave a comment

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act exists to protect and give a remedy to owners of trademarks whose rights are being violated by a third party.  Often referred to as “trademark trolls” these third parties may be liable to the owner of the trademark if with “a bad faith intent to profit from that mark… registers, traffics in or uses a domain name” that creates a likelihood of confusion to the owners’ registered trademarks.  Unfortunately these domain holdups are far too common and present real business issues for legitimate trademark owners.

Here’s how the holdup games works and how you can prevent it.  Generally speaking you likely just started a new business or launched a new product.  You’ve generated some digital press, people are visiting your website, and you’re making money.  Your customers are taking note of your success but so are domain pirates.  One such “enterprising” individual registers a similar domain name to yours.  They may have even copied some of your website’s images or text.  You probably don’t even know they exist until a customer tells you they stumbled on a possibly fake site looking for yours.  Alternatively the trademark troll emailed you to let you know they coincidentally own a similar domain as yours.  Huh… what a coincidence!

So what can you do to prevent or mitigate this behavior?  First you need to be smart about your IP.  Before you go to market secure any trademarks with an intent-to-use trademark.  Second, you need to lock down and register any similar website domains that a trademark troll could profit from.  Common misspellings and pluralization are common methods used by the domain pirates.  Third, do not respond to the baiting email.  Contact your trademark attorney for a strategy discussion.

Your trademark attorney can advise you about what steps should be taken next.  While monetary damages and possibly attorney’s fees are available under the ACPA you’re more likely to receive a court order canceling the offending parties domain registration.  Contact Mighty Marks for a free consultation

 

In Trademark Disputes
permalink

Car-Freshener Corporation Wins Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

December 11, 2015 — Leave a comment

Last month we covered the Car-Freshener Corporation’s trademark infringement lawsuit against Exotica Fresheners Company.

Car-Freshener Corp claimed that Exotica designed their products to look like Car-Freshener’s products, that consumers would be confused and tricked into purchasing Exotica’s products rather than Car-Freshener’s products, and further, that because Exotica’s products were an inferior, additional damage to Car-Freshener was being caused.

This case came down to a debate over “Trade Dress” and ultimately the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, Car-Freshener.

“Trade Dress”

Trade dress, a subset of trademark law, contemplates the design of a product including its packaging. And much like other forms of trademarks, it can be protected under federal law. However, it must still serve as a source identifier. That is, it must allow the consuming public to see the trade dress (the packaging) and identify what company is producing and selling that good. Therefore, it must be either inherently distinctive or it must acquire secondary meaning (see this post for more).

One exception to protecting trade dress, however, is that you cannot protect functional aspects of packaging using trade dress. Functionality can only be protected under other forms of intellectual property, namely patent law.

The Arguments

While Car-Freshener Corp. made the arguments outlined above, the defendant, Exotica, claimed that its palm tree was sufficiently different from the pine tree used by Car-Freshener Corp. and that they used similar colors for the same scents because they were the industry standard. Exotica also claimed that they have used yellow packaging off and on for years without complaint from Car-Freshener Corp. In the end, Exotica claimed that it was just a coincidence that the products looked similar.

The Jury Verdict

The jury, weighing whether Exotica’s products were so similar to Car-Freshener Corp’s as to cause consumer confusion, found in favor of the plaintiff, Car-Freshener Corp. They also awarded over $50,000 in damages to Car-Freshener Corp.

This is not overly surprising given the numerous similarities between the two products. They were both trees of about the same size. They used similar colors for the different fragrancies. And they were sold in clear packaging with a yellow cardboard top containing red and green elements.

What’s Next

Unless they appeal, Exotica will be required to change their packaging to avoid future infringement. Of course, you likely won’t see much of a change on your local store shelf because Exotica is actually a fairly small company. In fact, while Car-Freshener’s sales exceed $100 Million per year, Exotica’s sales are only about $100,000 per year.

Of course, that doesn’t mean Exotica wasn’t worth suing. To the contrary, Car-Freshener can use this case to protect their brand and also to scare off other infringers and would-be infringers.

Questions about your trademark rights?

If you want to protect your trademark, contact us! We help startups and small business file trademark applications with the USPTO all the time.

—
Image: Court Case
*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

In Trademark Disputes, Trademark Law
permalink

Alleged Trademark Infringement Hanging In Your Car

November 20, 2015 — 1 Comment

Trademarks are everywhere. Even hanging from your car’s rear-view mirror. And business owners everywhere can learn a thing or two in a recent lawsuit filed to protect trademarks associated with little tree car-fresheners.

In One Corner: The Car-Freshener Corporation

You’ve probably never heard of them, but you’ve likely seen and maybe even used their product.

The Car-Freshner Corporation has made little tree car-fresheners for years. The fresheners are shaped like a pine tree, have the company’s name written at an angle in the middle, and are sold in a cellophane package with a yellow card top. The company claims that the public associates its products with “the concepts of freshness, cleanliness, and pleasing scents.”

And they have three federal trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The first two are word marks (“Car-Freshner” and “Magic Tree”) and the third is a design mark for the tree design with a white box in the middle for their logo. All three are in connection to “absorbent bodies impregnated with perfumed air deodorant” and date back to first use dates in the 50’s and 60’s.

In the Other Corner: Exotica Fresheners Company

If you prefer palm trees and coconuts over pine trees, then maybe you’ve heard of the Exotica Fresheners Company.

This company also makes air fresheners for cars. Their fresheners are shaped like a palm tree and contain coconuts, and like the Car-Freshener’s products have the company’s name written at an angle in the middle and are sold in cellophane packaging with a yellow card top.

Unlike the Car-Freshener Corporation, the Exotica Fresheners Company does not have a federal trademark registration. In fact, they applied for a trademark for “Pine Tree” with the USPTO but were denied registration and failed to appeal.

Round 1

The Car-Freshener Corporation filed a trademark infringement suit against Exotica claiming consumers were likely to be confused and deceived and likely to mistakenly purchase Exotica’s products when they intended to purchase Car-Freshener’s products. Car-Freshener further claimed that Exotica’s products were likely to “falsely mislead consumers into believing” that Exotica’s products were “affiliated or connected with or are approved” by Car-Freshener.

And in opening statements to the jury, Car-Freshener alleged that Exotica knowingly designed its products to look like Car-Freshener’s products. And further, that Exotica’s products were of an inferior quality when compared to Car-Freshener’s products.

Exotica argued that there is no evidence of consumer confusion.

What’s Next

Interestingly, disputes between these two companies is nothing new. In fact, they have been involved in numerous disputes dating back to at least 1995 over trademark matters. And in this current trial, the outcome is not certain.

As we have covered on this blog before (Justice Explained: Trademark Infringement & Defenses & The Nine Factors a Court Considers When Deciding “Likelihood of Confusion”) Car-Fresheners will have to show that Exotica’s products are likely to cause consumer confusion. That is, that the public is likely to purchase the palm tree air freshener mistakenly thinking they are buying a product from Car-Freshener.

While the products are similar, it is not clear if they are so similar as to meet that threshold. The jury will most likely review the nine factors (see the post above) to come to a determination in this case. And the outcome will be interesting.

Hopefully we will get a verdict soon. And when we do, we will tell you what happened and why here on the Mighty Marks® blog.

Don’t miss our updates! Connect with us on Twitter & Facebook to stay in touch.

—
Image: Court Case
*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

 

In Trademark Disputes
permalink

Pinterest Loses Trademark Battle In Court

October 29, 2015 — Leave a comment

A trademark lawsuit beginning in 2013 may finally be at a conclusion, resulting in Pinterest losing some ability to prevent other businesses from using the word “pin” online to save links, images, and other works.

The lessons stemming from this case are helpful to business owners everywhere. Here’s how it went down.

The Parties.

Pintrips operates a website that allows users to save travel items on other websites for later viewing on the Pintrips website. Users do this using a “pin” button that is imbedded on third party websites.

Pinterest, on the other hand, operates the widely popular website allowing users to “pin” creative items into boards on the Pinterest website. Much the same as Pintrips, users do this with a “pin it” button on third party websites.

Pinterest filed suit against Pintrips in 2013.

Pinterest is the owner of multiple Pinterest trademark registrations and at least one Pin trademark registration. As a result, it brought suit against Pintrips in 2013 seeking to prevent Pintrips from using its blue pin button to save travel information on the Pintrips website.

Complicating Pintrips business further, the USPTO denied the company’s trademark application for “pin” pending resolution of the lawsuit.

Pintrips attorneys argued that the words “pin” and “pinning” are simply part of internet terminology. They claimed that saying “pin” was much like saying “trash” in reference to a computer’s trash folder. Further, they argued it would be unreasonable to allow large corporations to “seize control” of commonly used terms that are a part of “everyday culture.”

The court agreed with Pintrips.

In tossing out Pinterest’s lawsuit, the court stated that “no reasonable weighing of the evidence presented at trial could lead to the conclusion that Pintrips used the term pin as a way to identify, distinguish, or indicate the source of its goods or services…. In fact, any attempt to distinguish Pintrips by use of its pin button would be futile, given that the words pin and pinning have been used to describe the same feature by many of the most popular and well-known software and internet products since well before Pintrips’s creation.”

The court also agreed with Pintrips’ argument that “pin” is just part of internet terminology saying that it was similar to early software designers using “real-world metaphors such as folders, files, desktops and bulletin boards to describe new technological functions.”

The lessons for your business.

This case and the loss for Pinterest is a great example you should keep in mind when creating your branding. Rather than trying to use generic terms to describe your features, try to be more original. Use arbitrary terms whenever possible if you really want to ensure you can protect your branding with trademark law. Descriptive terms may be easier to market, but arbitrary terms are easier to protect.

Want to learn more?

You should subscribe to our quarterly newsletter, Mighty Updates, to stay current with trademark news and legal issues.

—
Image: Pinterest Logo
*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

In Trademark Disputes , , , , ,
permalink

The Nine Factors a Court Considers When Deciding “Likelihood of Confusion”

August 18, 2015 — 1 Comment

Trademark infringement occurs when one party uses another party’s trademark in commerce in such a way that consumers are likely to be confused as to the first party’s goods or services. Whether consumers are likely to be confused is a question of fact that must be decided during a trial (or by the parties in settlement negotiations, when possible).

The nine factors below are helpful in making this decision and are used by courts and lawyers in most trademark litigation lawsuits. As a result, they are good factors for you to think about if you find yourself being accused of infringement or if you think someone is infringing on your mark.

1. Strength of the Plaintiff’s Mark

Assuming the plaintiff has a valid trademark, they will look to the strength of the mark to decide how much protection it deserves. As you can learn in this post, arbitrary/fanciful marks receive the most protection, suggestive marks the second most, and descriptive marks the least. (And generic marks never receive protection.)

2. Similarity of the Marks

Courts will look at three items when comparing the two marks. First is sight, do the marks look alike when written next to each other. Second, do the marks sound the same when spoken. And third, do they have the same or similar meanings when looked up in a dictionary. The more similar the marks are from those viewpoints, the more likely trademark infringement is to be found.

3. Similarity of the Goods or Services

Related to the last point, the court will review how similar the goods or services are to one another. If one mark is used to sell enterprise computer software and the other used to sell iPhone games, those might be considered similar enough as to cause confusion. On the other hand, if the other were used to sell grass seed, then they would probably be sufficiently different to avoid a finding of trademark infringement.

4. The Likelihood the Plaintiff will Expand into the Defendant’s Market

For common law trademarks (which only receive protection in their geographical areas and natural zones of expansion) courts will look to whether the plaintiff is likely to enter the defendant’s market. For example, a food truck operator in Miami might be able to prevent a similarly named food truck from operating in Orlando, but probably not in Portland (which is why the Miami operator should get a federal registration – for nationwide rights).

5. Actual Confusion

A court can find trademark infringement even if actual consumer confusion is not present – all that is needed is likely confusion. Of course, if you have evidence of actual confusion such as your customers going to a competitor’s location due to their infringement that goes a long way towards proving an infringement case.

6. Sophistication of Buyers

Courts will also consider how much effort a consumer is likely to put into the purchasing decision. The more effort (such as buying a plane) the less likely they are to be confused because they should learn of the different source during their research. The less likely (such as buying clothes), the more likely they are to be confused as to the source because they likely will not do a ton of research into the source.

7. The Defendant’s Intent

While not a technical requirement, courts often look at this consideration because if bad faith can be shown, it is clear evidence of infringement.

8. Quality of Defendant’s Goods

When determining damages, a court is likely to look to whether the defendant’s goods were shotty. If so, that could harm the goodwill of the plaintiff and entitle the plaintiff to greater damages.

9. Consent Agreements

If the plaintiffs have an agreement under which the defendant was granted permission to use the mark, then that will obviously lessen the likelihood that confusion exists and therefore negate an infringement claim.

Stay Current

We hope our blog is helpful to you in terms of teaching you what you need to know about trademark law. To stay up to date, be sure to connect with us on Twitter & Facebook!

—
Image: Thinkstock/adolf34
*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

 

In Trademark Disputes, Trademark Law , ,
permalink

Confusingly Similar Trademark Applications

April 28, 2015 — Leave a comment

As we have highlighted on this blog before, you should always perform a trademark search before applying for a trademark. There are many reasons for this, one of which is because you don’t want to waste time and money applying for a mark if someone else already registered your mark or another confusingly similar mark.

If your search reveals that someone else has such a registration, you have several options.

First, check the goods and services associated with the registration.

If the goods and services is for faucets and you want to operate an airline, you are probably ok. That is because consumers won’t be confused into thinking your airline is associated with the faucet manufacturer. Figured it out yet? We’re talking about Delta. Delta airlines is rarely confused with Delta faucets, therefore registrations for both would likely be allowed by the USPTO.

(There are some limits to that for famous marks. For example, you probably can’t use “McDonalds” for any reason, even to sell computers, simply because of how famous their mark is in the eyes of consumers.)

Second, you might be able to keep using your mark, even if the goods and services are the same.

As we’ve said before, trademark rights stem from use in commerce. If you’ve used your mark in your hometown for years and someone else obtains a USPTO registration of your mark because they use it too (on the other side of the country), that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to stop because you used it first.

However, it probably means you can’t expand too far. You might be able to expand to a neighboring city, but your rights to expand nationwide would be much more limited. This is why you should always seek registration when you can!

Third, pick a new mark.

This is sometime easy (for new companies) and sometimes really hard (for old established companies).

If this is an option for you, it is often a simple way to fix the potential confusion that may result from two similar names.

Lastly, get permission!

Although this is not always an option, it might work in your case. We’ve seen it work before.

Look up the owner of the registration in the USPTO database. Do your research. And if you find that confusion is unlikely, you can contact them and ask them to write you a letter (which you might write for them to sign) that says they consent to your registration of your application. You can then submit that electronically along with your application and the USPTO will accept that and allow your mark to be registered (pending other reviews of course).

What Next?

Talk to an attorney!

While an attorney isn’t always necessary in the trademark world, these are tricky issues and you should seek the advice of a trademark attorney before proceeding with these matters. They can help you in many ways.

If you have questions, you can learn more on our website, www.mightymarks.com, and you can contact us if you have specific questions!

—
Image: Thinkstock/RomoloTavani
*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

In Trademark Disputes, Trademark Law , , ,
permalink

Converse Sues to Protect Its Famous Shoe Designs

January 20, 2015 — 3 Comments

Sneaker manufacturers are slugging it out in court. At issue is whether a company can claim the exclusive right to produce sneakers with distinctive designs. First, Converse Shoes sued 31 companies for creating knockoffs of its All Star sneakers. Then New Balance jumped into the ring and sued Converse, claiming that the trademark was invalid.

Converse Claims Trademark Infringement

In October 2014, Converse sued 31 companies in 22 separate lawsuits, claiming they infringed Converse’s trademarks by copying core elements of the design of its famous Chuck Taylor All Star basketball sneakers. Among the companies sued were giants such as Walmart and Kmart. Converse also filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, hoping to prevent knockoffs made overseas from entering the country.

The popular footwear, known to generations of teenagers as “Chucks,” has a distinctive shape and black-and-white design with a white rubber toe cap. Although originally designed for playing basketball, they have become fashion statements that convey an aura of coolness and have appeared in iconic movies such as “Grease” and “Rocky.” Chucks have been made since the 1920s, saw an explosion of popularity in the 1950s and 60s, and had a new surge of popularity after Nike bought Converse in 2003 and ramped up efforts to promote and distribute the All Stars.

The more popular the sneakers became, the more their design was imitated. The result was Converse’s vigorous attempt to protect its brand.

New Balance Fights Back

New Balance makes a sneaker under its PF Flyers brand that looks similar to the Converse All Star. Even though New Balance was not one of the 31 companies that Converse had sued, New Balance decided to take proactive action to try to prevent Converse from adding it in the future to the list of companies in its lawsuits or in its Trade Commission claim.

In late December, New Balance sued Converse, claiming that Converse’s trademark should be canceled. New Balance’s rationale was that Converse’s trademark describes features that are common to many shoes, and that the All Stars and the PF Flyers are different enough that consumers wouldn’t be confused.

Walmart and Kmart Fight Back Too

Walmart, Kmart, Sketchers, Ralph Lauren Corp, and many of the other companies that Converse sued have been hiring Intellectual Property lawyers and gearing up for the suit, which is expected to become a major news story when it gets underway later this year.

When Can Fashion Design Elements Be Legally Protected?

These cases raise questions about what trademarks mean in the world of fashion and whether the manufacturers of fashion products can claim exclusive rights to elements of their designs. Converse, according to some experts, may have an uphill battle.

Showing that a design element is popular is not enough to claim infringement. Even showing that the design is different and distinctive is not enough. Instead, in order for similar designs to be infringing, consumers must associate the design element with its original manufacturer. In addition, manufacturers are not allowed to legally protect design elements that are functional.

These two requirements will make it difficult for Converse to prevail, observers say. Many people will be avidly watching the lawsuits to see how they turn out.

Don’t Miss Out

Find this interesting? We do too. Subscribe to Mighty Updates, our quarterly email newsletter to stay up to date on trademark law.

—
Image: Thinkstock/kosobu
*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

In Trademark Disputes, Trademark Law , , , , ,
permalink

Sealtight vs. Sealtite: A Trademark Battle in the Supreme Court

December 9, 2014 — Leave a comment

As you may recall from other posts on this blog, trademark laws grant a trademark owner the exclusive right to use their registered mark in commerce with respect to specific goods or services. Those rights extend not only to other people or companies using their exact registered mark, but also to uses of marks that are “confusingly similar” to the registered mark. The USPTO uses this rule to deny marks that, although spelled differently, are pronounced the same.

However, due to rulings in the Federal Courts (which are separate from the USPTO), the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on this issue via the Sealtight Case.

Background

B&B Hardware sells self-sealing, leak-proof screws and bolts for use in high-tech industries such as the aerospace and medical industries, under the name Sealtight. B&B obtained a registration for this mark in 1993.

Hargis Industries, on the other hand, sells construction screws for buildings under the name Sealtite Building Fasteners.

When Hargis applied for a federal trademark for Sealtite in the late 90’s, B&B objected arguing the use of Sealtite would cause consumer confusion between the two companies and their product lines. The USPTO Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (“TTAB”) agreed with B&B and denied the registration by Hargis.

However, Hargis has argued that its’ products are different from those sold by Sealtight and that Hargis’ customers are a different class of customers. Hargis has even won two jury verdicts in U.S. Federal Courts on this point. One judge even found that B&B attempted to manufacture evidence to bolster it’s trademark infringement claims.

With a split between the Federal Courts and the TTAB, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and decide who should have the final say on this matter.

The Supreme Court Hearings

The Justices heard an hour long oral argument last week on the issue.

Justice Sotomayor said that it only makes sense that the USPTO proceedings should be given some weight in Federal Court cases otherwise the agency’s powers would be rendered “almost irrelevant.” And the Obama administration argued in favor of B&B by claiming that the Federal Courts should defer to the USPTO on such matters.

However, Justice Ginsburg (along with some other Justices) showed some signs of agreement with Hagis. For example, Ginsburg made statements that implied that the USPTO proceedings might not have controlling effect in Federal Courts because the stakes in such cases are much higher than the stakes at the TTAB level.

As a result, it is not clear how the court will rule on this matter. The one thing we do know is that a decision is likely to be announced in June.

What This Means for You

The outcome of this case will almost certainly impact future trademark disputes. And the most important thing for you to take away from this current dispute is the importance of using appropriate guidance and assistance when dealing with trademark matters.

If you want to keep up with trademark law and learn how Federal registration can benefit your business, be sure to subscribe to Mighty Updates, the MightyMarks® email newsletter!

—
Image: Thinkstock/Willard
*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

In Trademark Disputes, Trademark Law, Trademark News , ,
permalink

How to Stop Someone From Infringing Your Trademark

September 16, 2014 — Leave a comment

Protecting your trademark is an important matter and, in many cases protecting your trademark is equally or sometimes more important than protecting other business assets. And, if an individual or organization uses a mark in a manner that is likely to cause confusion with your trademark, then trademark infringement may have occurred.

So, what are your options if an individual or organization has illegally used your trademark?

Start with a letter expressing your concern.

For some, the first course of action is to send a cease and desist letter. This is a good tactic, but it immediately sets an aggressive tone from which it may be difficult to recover. If you start with a letter with an agreeable tone (perhaps even suggesting a trademark license), you may avoid a bumpy road ahead. As a genuine mistake may explain the actions of a party committing a trademark infringement, a simple letter may be all that you need.

Next, make a stronger case with a cease and desist letter.

One common remedy for trademark infringement is an injunction. A cease and desist letter notifies the infringer of the infringement, demands that they end their infringement, and threatens legal action to obtain an injunction and damages. This method is usually preferred over filing a lawsuit immediately because you will expend considerable money and other resources fighting a lawsuit. Hopefully this letter can help you avoid such costs and legal fees.

If still no success: file a lawsuit.

If neither of these remedies worked, you can file a lawsuit in a federal court (assuming you have a federal registration). If you are successful, the court is likely to enforce an injunction on the infringer to prevent them from using the trademark. Further, you can pursue the following damages: (1) any profits made from illegally using a trademark; (2) any financial damages you have suffered as a direct result; and (3) legal fees. The court will assess how much these damages are and whether or not you are entitled to them or other damages.

A trademark infringement can affect not only a company’s product, but also its brand. And while you can protect your mark even if it is not federally registered, your odds of success are greater if you have a registration.

Towards that end, you should call Mighty Marks® to protect your trademark. You can call us anytime at 855-MYT-MARKS.

—
Image: Thinkstock/adolf34

*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

In Trademark Disputes , ,
permalink

Have Your Pi and Trademark it Too

June 10, 2014 — Leave a comment

A Brooklyn artist recently upset geeks and t-shirt merchants with a recently approved federal trademark registration on a 3,000-year-old Greek symbol.

In late 2012 Paul Ingrisano applied for a federal trademark registration for the Pi symbol followed by a period in connection to “athletic apparel, namely shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hat and caps, [and] athletic uniforms.” After correcting some minor errors with the application he successfully obtained a registration for the mark in early 2014.

Within months of obtaining the registration, Ingrisano began enforcing his newly acquired rights. His first big target was Zazzle.com, a website where users can sell goods like shirts and mugs featuring designs created by the users.

In his cease and desist demand letter Ingrisano’s lawyer makes the case that the sale of apparel on Zazzle.com featuring the Pi symbol is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the goods being sold (the essential element of proving trademark infringement). The letter then goes on to make multiple demands regarding inventory, evidence of sales, and various accountings.

Zazzle’s initial reaction was to remove all potentially infringing materials for fear it might be indirectly liable as the middleman between the creators of the potentially infringing goods and the end consumers. However after receiving complaints from the creators, a Zazzle representative told cnet.com “After reviewing the takedown request more closely, Zazzle has decided to restore the ‘Pi’ products. Zazzle is a marketplace for a community of artists, and we want to continue to support artists who are creating original artwork.”

Zazzle didn’t elaborate further, but several things in the cease and desist letter seemed a bit off. First, the letter requests Zazzle cease and desist all “copyright infringement” when the matter at hand is a trademark. Remember, copyrights tend to protect creative works while trademarks tend to protect names and slogans.

Second, it is unclear if Ingrisano is seeking to prevent others from using the Pi mark or the Pi mark plus a period. The essential question is whether consumers purchasing goods on Zazzle would be confused as to the source of the goods and believe they were coming from Ingrisano when, in fact, they were not. That raises the question as to the importance of the period in the Pi registration – a question that would likely have to be decided by a jury.

This registration and Ingrisano’s attempt to protect the Pi symbol with a period will undoubtedly raise many eyebrows in the coming months and years and we’ll let you know when new developments arise.

Be sure to follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook to make sure you don’t miss the updates!

Image Credit: uspto.gov

*This article is very general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with legal questions should consult with an attorney prior to making any legal decisions.

 

 

In Trademark Disputes, Trademark News , , , ,
permalink