• Posts Tagged ‘abandonment’

    Zombie Brand Rising From the Dead?

    by  • May 25, 2014 • trade dress, trademark • 0 Comments

    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 →

    Google is, Irrelevantly, Confirmed as the Senior User of the ANDROID Mark

    by  • April 7, 2014 • trademark • 0 Comments

    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 →

    How Not to Manage a Brand

    by  • February 17, 2014 • trademark • 0 Comments

    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 →

    If There’s No Evidence, How Do You Decide?

    by  • November 18, 2013 • trademark • 1 Comment

    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 →

    “Abandoned” Means It’s Not Yours Anymore

    by  • November 6, 2013 • trademark

    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 →

    Which Distributor Owns the Mark?

    by  • September 16, 2013 • trademark • 0 Comments

    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 →

    Abandoned and Adopted

    by  • June 8, 2013 • trademark • 0 Comments

    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 →

    Sixth Circuit Saves the Day

    by  • March 21, 2013 • trademark • 0 Comments

    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

    by  • December 27, 2012 • trademark • 0 Comments

    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 →

    Another Band Name Ownership Decision

    by  • October 21, 2012 • trademark • 0 Comments

    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 →