Apple failed to block Swatch’s attempt to acquire the trademark for Steve Jobs’ catchphrase ‘one more thing’

12 10 2017

The Swiss watchmaker Swatch’s effort to acquire the trademark for “SWATCH ONE MORE THING” has run in to opposition from Apple, which argues the phrase ‘one more thing’ is closely associated with the software giant’s founder Steve Jobs. During Apple press events, Jobs was known to precede new product announcements and introductions with the phrase “there is one more thing” in his keynote addresses. The “one more thing” prelude became a fixture at Apple events… Immediately after the JPO granted protection to the trademark, Apple filed an opposition in May 19, 2015 on the grounds that the trademark violates the main paragraph of Article 3(1) as well as 4(1)(vii), 4(1)(x), 4(1)(xv), and 4(1)(xix) of Japanese Trademark Law.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/10/03/apple-failed-block-swatchs-trademark-steve-jobs-catchphrase-one-more-thing/id=87400/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Project management company files trademark lawsuit against potential scam artists

12 10 2017

Plaintiff operates a project management training company called “Project Management Academy.” Plaintiff has used the trademark since 2009 and owns several related federal trademark registrations.

The Defendants are accused of operating a similar company (some call it a scam) using the “Project Management Academy” or “PMA” trademarks.

Educate 360, LLC v. Patchree Patchrint et al.

Court Case Number: 4:17-cv-00078
File Date: Friday, October 6, 2017
Plaintiff: Educate 360, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: William P. Kelley, David M. Stupich of Stuart & Branigin LLP
Defendant:  Patchree Patchrint a/k/a Patty Jones and Anthony Christopher Jones
Cause: Declaratory Relief, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Cybersquatting, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Passing Off/Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD
Referred To: TBD

Complaint:

more
The content in this post was found at https://indianaintellectualproperty.com/2017/10/09/project-management-company-files-trademark-lawsuit-against-potential-scam-artists/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Trademark a Band Name: What’s in a Rock Band’s Name?

17 09 2017

While it is possible to copyright the design of a band logo, the band name itself is not copyrightable (see here and here). Band names are protectable under trademark law, because like brand names they allow us to distinguish one band’s music and identity from another. They are what enable us to distinguish between a “Beatles” record on the one hand, and a “Chipmunks” record on the other… The more unique the name, the greater the degree of trademark protection, but also the more the name will stand out and set the band apart from others, which is generally the goal.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/09/10/trademark-band-name-rock-bands-name/id=87552/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Trademark Registrations for Emojis

12 06 2017

[This is another excerpt from my Emojis and the Law paper.]

The Trademark Office has registered emoji trademarks. On January 20, 2017, I conducted a search in the TESS database for “emoji” and identified 385 records. At that time, most of those are pending trademark applications; I counted only 62 actual registrations. Of those, most are word marks with no design elements; and the few with design elements usually incorporated an emoji within the design rather than constituting an actual emoji itself. Still, I found a couple of trademark registrations of emojis, including:

Registration No. 5048843 (Sept. 27, 2016) for a key emoji:

key emoji

 

 

 

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/06/trademark-registrations-for-emojis.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Past President sues Military History Museum for Trademark Infringement

4 02 2017

Plaintiff is the owner of a federal trademark registration for FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM, registered on April 19, 2016. He first used the mark in 2012 in connection with a military history museum of which he was the founding president and a board member.

Plaintiff left the museum in October 2016 and notified the museum that it could no longer use the trademark. He has begun promoting a new Evansville museum with the same name.

This case serves as a good reminder for small businesses and non-profits to own their own trademarks, rather than registering them in the name of an owner or board member.

 

Litov v. Freedom Heritage Museum

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00241-RLY-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard Litov
Plaintiff Counsel: Keith E. Rounder, Gary K. Price of Terrell, Baugh, Salmon & Born, LLP
Defendant: Freedom Heritage Museum, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:


The content in this post was found at https://indianaintellectualproperty.com/2016/12/07/past-president-sues-military-history-museum-for-trademark-infringement/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.