Property, intangible

a blog about ownership of intellectual property rights and its licensing


trademark

  • “Heritage” Brands Revisited

    Thanks to John Welch for pointing me to a new decision from the TTAB, Chrysler LLC v. Pimpo. Chrysler LLC opposed the registration of the mark RAMBLER for “automobiles and structural parts therefor” by Anthony S. Pimpo. RAMBLER is, of course, a model of car that was produced from 1950 to 1969 – you may… Continue reading

  • Tickler for Licensing IP

    This IP Finance blog post points us to a publication by the UK Intellectual Property Office giving some basics for licensing intellectual property. It looks like a useful handbook to remind us of the various points to remember when doing licensing work. Continue reading

  • Oklahoma City or Seattle Supersonics?

    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, logo… Continue reading

  • Who Owns a Dead Mark? Ask River West Brands

    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 to… Continue reading

  • POLAROID

    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 Art… Continue reading

  • When Not to Assign Intent-to-Use Applications

    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 to… Continue reading

  • Assigning “Goodwill”

    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 and… Continue reading

  • Who Owns the Mark?

    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 problem… Continue reading

  • Combining Trademarks in a Jointly Owned Holdco

    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 trademarks… Continue reading

  • Hot N’ Ready For All

    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 is… Continue reading