• trademark

    Oklahoma City or Seattle Supersonics?

    by  • July 28, 2008 • trademark

    There is some consternation in Seattle. The Seattle Supersonics are moving to Oklahoma City. One news report said “the SuperSonics are headed to Oklahoma City with Bennett leading the way, leaving behind the team name, colors and 41 years of history.” More accurately, another report said a binding agreement would “keeps the SuperSonics’ name,...

    Read more →

    Who Owns a Dead Mark? Ask River West Brands

    by  • July 26, 2008 • trademark

    We’ve all encountered clients who believe that when a mark is unregistered, or the registration lapses, the client can immediately start using the trademark and take advantage of its residual goodwill. Brand significance can live on for many years and a newcomer may see an opportunity to leverage the goodwill in an unused mark...

    Read more →

    POLAROID

    by  • July 25, 2008 • trademark

    I’ve been driving past the former Polaroid building in Waltham, Massachusetts on my way to work. The building is empty, the windows taken out, and what caught my eye is that the POLAROID sign is down. The company moved its headquarters to Concord at the end of 2007. Polaroid had already sold its landmark...

    Read more →

    When Not to Assign Intent-to-Use Applications

    by  • July 25, 2008 • trademark

    The TTABlog reports on a successful trademark opposition because of an invalid assignment of an intent-to-use application. I mentioned yesterday that U.S. trademarks can be assigned without any tangible assets, but the U.S. trademark system has a carve-out for intent-to-use applications – they can’t be assigned without at least part of the ongoing business...

    Read more →

    Assigning “Goodwill”

    by  • July 23, 2008 • trademark

    In the United States, an assignment of a trademark is invalid if the “goodwill” is not also assigned with the mark, but there’s no requirement that any tangible assets be transferred. So what exactly does it mean when agreements recite something like “Assignor does hereby assign to Assignee all rights, title and interest in...

    Read more →

    Who Owns the Mark?

    by  • July 22, 2008 • trademark

    There are few disputes more difficult to solve than deciding who owns a trademark after co-owners have a falling out. Family businesses seem particularly susceptible, my guess would be because they are started more casually without formal documents that even contemplate trademark ownership. European trademark blog Class 46 reports one way to solve the...

    Read more →

    Combining Trademarks in a Jointly Owned Holdco

    by  • July 15, 2008 • trademark

    The May-June 2008 Trademark Reporter has an article entitled “Combining Trademarks in a Jointly Owned IP Holding Company,” by Lanning Bryer and Matthew Asbell. It discusses the risks and advantages of using jointly-owned trademark holding companies for management of “combined” trademarks, i.e., where one trademark is used by unrelated entities (like Volvo) or the...

    Read more →

    Hot N’ Ready For All

    by  • July 4, 2008 • trademark

    Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., does some contract interpretation on ownership of trademarks in a franchise relationship – not the trademarks originally licensed, but a trademark created by a franchisee. Pinnacle Pizza was a franchisee for Little Caesar Enterprises pizza (I’ll use “Little Caesar” to refer to the company; the trademark...

    Read more →

    Devil in the Details

    by  • July 2, 2008 • trademark

    In Angel Flight of Georgia, Inc. v. Angel Flight America, Inc., the 11th Circuit decision left open more questions than it answered. Two entities with an admirable purpose, providing free transportation for donated organs and medical patients, were using the same trademark, ANGEL FLIGHT, in the same territory – plaintiff Angel Flight Georgia (AF-GA)...

    Read more →