I just watched the most recent episode of Mad Men, “The Strategy.” The “strategy” is for an advertising campaign for the Burger Chef chain of fast food restaurants. Here’s the closing shot of the episode, with Pete, Peggy and Don sitting in a Burger Chef: Anyone eaten at a Burger Chef lately—anyone? According to Wikipedia, there...
Read more →Before Google acquired Android, Inc., and later released the Android operating system, Erich Specht had registered the mark ANDROID DATA. Specht claimed Google infringed his trademark; Google was successful in the trial court with a claim that Specht had abandoned the trademark, as I previously blogged. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit...
Read more →I’m very interested in C.F.M. Distributing Co. v. Costantine, a case about a failed franchise and a son’s effort to revive it. The effort failed because there were so many former uncontrolled licensees that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held (as affirmed by the Federal Circuit) that the applicant was not the owner...
Read more →I often write about cases where there are two claimants to the same trademark. We’re still struggling with the fundamental doctrine that should apply in the situation, and because we’re struggling it means that the litigants may not capture or offer evidence that the fact finder needs in order to decide. Which is what...
Read more →What a mess. Add up ugly facts and a court that bought a frivolous and completely wrong argument (made without citation – because there aren’t any) and you end up with a fiasco. Here’s to appeals. Non-party Herb Burkhalter had a yellow pages directory business he sold to co-defendants Steven M. Brandeberry and American...
Read more →Hold on, we’ve got a complicated one here. Save it for your “very long reading” queue. One trademark, three potential owners in the distribution chain with overlapping periods of time during which they claim ownership. The mark: “Smart Candle” (Smart Candles, SMARTCANDLE, SmartCandles, etc.) for electronic candles. The companies: Smartcandle.co.uk Limited (“SCK”) — non-party...
Read more →Well, here’s a teaser of a case we might never know more about. The mark INTRAV has been registered since 1968 for travel agency services and is now owned by International Expeditions, Inc. A company called Christine E, LLC filed a petition to cancel the mark on the basis of abandonment: After diligent inquiry,...
Read more →A while back I started a post this way: What a mess. Add up ugly facts and a court that bought a frivolous and completely wrong argument (made without citation – because there aren’t any) and you end up with a fiasco. Here’s to appeals. And the appeal is here. Muuuchhh better! Defendant Steven...
Read more →Mind your licenses – if you want the mark to remain valid, it behooves you to comply with the terms of the license. Non-party Ansell Incorporated, later called Ansell Healthcare Products (Ansell), owned the mark CONDOM SENSE for prophylactics, claiming first use in 1988. In 1992, it filed an intent-to-use application for the mark...
Read more →Ok, I’m very confused by the decision in the TTAB case O.T.H. Enterprises, Inc. v. Vasquez. What’s confusing is that the Board discusses, in two separate parts of the decision, ownership of the mark and priority. I don’t really get that – if the case is about who owns the mark, what other mark...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.