• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Trademark

Should You Register Your Trademark?

04 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Trademark

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Application Filing Fee, Clearance Search, Patent, Thompson CompuMark, Trademark, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO

Clients often inquire whether it’s in their best interest to register their trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

The traditional short answer is: ”Yes, if at all possible, you should register your trademarks!” This advice has been widely echoed by qualified intellectual property attorneys.

The purpose of this post is to give you additional financial information with which you can decide whether to register your trademarks. Some lawyers will tell you it’s “expensive.” The same lawyers might tell other clients that it’s “not expensive.” I’ll provide some real numbers that you can actually put into your budget.

First, keep in mind that registration of  trademarks is not required. Common law rights arise naturally from actual use of a trademark. Generally, the first entity to either use a trademark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the USPTO has the ultimate right to use and registration. However, filing for and receiving a federal trademark registration on the Principal Register provides several advantages:

  • constructive notice to the public of the registrant’s claim of ownership of the mark;
  • a legal presumption of the registrant’s ownership of the mark and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;
  • the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
  • the use of the U.S registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries; and
  • the ability to file the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods.

Optimally, all trademark owners who consider their trademark a valuable business asset (…and, if not, why continue using the mark?) would like to obtain these advantages.  But registration is not free.  Here are some of the likely fees (based on the USPTO’s current Fee Schedule, last revised January 1, 2019) that you will face before and during the registration procedure:

Clearance Search – Before adopting and using a trademark, it’s advised that a trademark clearance search be performed to determine the availability of the trademark.  This will help determine whether there is another user already using the trademark, i.e. having superior rights in the trademark.  By performing an initial trademark clearance search, a business can avoid incurring liability for trademark infringement and avoid investing resources in a trademark which could be unusable because it infringes another’s trademark rights. Most attorneys will conduct a clearance search at their standard hourly rate. Expect the clearance search to cost $200-400.

A commercial research service like Thomson CompuMark, which conducts a search across numerous databases (federal, state, common law, business databases) will cost around $700.  Add attorney time to review and report on the results.

Application Filing Fee – The official filing fee ranges between $225-$400 (based on the goods/services selected, paper submissions cost more than applications filed online). Your attorney will charge a fee for the application preparation and filing, likely ranging between $400-$1000.

Response to Office Action – Office actions are letters from the USPTO that set forth the legal status of a trademark application. Typically, the examining attorney will set forth various requirements that the applicant must meet before an application can be approved for publication.  A majority of your attorney’s time in the application process will be spent reviewing and responding to the office action.

Looking into the future, you’ll want to keep in mind the renewal costs which will be paid after five (5) years. Expect to pay $500 for each class of goods and services that your trademark protects. (For example, if a band has registered its band name for both “musical services” and “t-shirts,”  it will be paying filing fees for two separate classes of protection. This applies to filing fees also.)

Notwithstanding the renewal costs, and assuming that no extensions, etc. are required, you’re looking at approximately $800-$1000 to file a federal application for one trademark protecting one class of goods/services. On top of the USPTO fees, you’ll be paying your trademark attorney for their time spent gathering information, preparing documents, filing the application and communicating with the USPTO.  Therefore, choosing a trademark attorney who provides excellent service at a lower cost can greatly enhance your bottom line. Also, these are just some of the more common fees you will face in registering your trademark…there may be additional filings/costs associated with your trademark registration, depending on the specifics of your trademark and the strategy of your attorney.

So, should you register your trademark??? The traditional answer still rings true…if fiscally possible, do it. Trademarks are valuable business assets that are typically far greater in value than any costs associated with registration. Always bear in mind that economies rise and fall, but trademark rights can continue indefinitely. Unfortunately, that means that spending less today to protect your trademark rights may allow another party to intervene and lock up important trademark rights for the future.  Also, be sure to consider how licensing opportunities might be affected should you not register your trademarks.

Final practical note:  Any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the “TM” (trademark) or “SM” (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO.  It’s free and reinforces good habits among those wearing the “marketing” hat.

Five Trademark Concerns When Rebranding: Netflix – Qwikster Edition

19 Monday Sep 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Branding, Intellectual Property, Social Media, Trademark

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Indianapolis Public Library, Netflix, Qwikster, Rebrand, Trademark

I woke this morning to learn that Netflix’s CEO had decided to fall on his own sword and rebrand Netflix’s DVD-by-mail feature (otherwise known as Netflix’s primary feature or the feature that made Netflix all of it’s money) to…wait for it…Qwikster. After a botched price hike this summer that alienated hundreds of thousands of subscribers, Netflix has decided to stick it’s thumb in the eye of all remaining loyal DVD-to-mail subscribers by leaving them with the new, unimproved Qwikster. I picture the captain of a luxury cruiser herding his passengers into old lifeboats, setting them adrift in the ocean and then cruising off smirking with the dinner buffet all to himself. Presumably, this is an effort to sell off the DVD-by-mail business and position Netflix to sail into a future of downloaded content without being encumbered by a logistically-difficult “by-mail” business model.

Full disclosure: I’ve been a Netflix fan since the beginning. I’ve spent more time than I care to calculate  watching discs from Netflix (2,091 movies rated). I’ve learned, laughed and loved with Netflix. I even used to own Netflix stock back during the days when I dabbled in the market. I’ve also been a bit of a Netflix evangelist at times as the company fought off Blockbuster and Redbox.

And now Netflix has given customers yet another reason to explore possible alternatives. Since I wrote a blog post about the Indianapolis Public Library’s rebrand a few weeks back, I thought it appropriate to analyze how Netflix’s rebrand meets the guidelines I set forth in that post.

1. At a bare minimum, do a Google search for similar trademarks already in use.

To Netflix’s credit, the Qwikster name seems to be relatively unencumbered from a trademark confusion perspective. There are 3 registrations for “Quickster” but in seemingly unrelated fields (Sports training equipment, namely, quick-assembly portable multi-sport practice nets; Jewelry, horological and chronometric instruments, namely, chronometers, watches and parts thereof; Telephone Indexes).

Of course, it could be that it’s such an awful name that every business with any marketing sense has stayed away. That being said, availability of a trademark is an increasingly rare trait so Netflix may have jumped on the first available name on their list. Time will tell whether that’s a smart approach to rebranding. However, as Item 2 will discuss, while potentially available for use in commerce, the mark may not be as ready for marketing purposes as initially thought.

Also, somewhere else you should check…Urban Dictionary. Have you considered all public connotations before adopting a new trademark?

2. Claim your domain name(s), Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. BEFORE you announce the rebrand.

Although no business seems to be using Qwikster, a few of the major social media accounts are already claimed by individuals. Twitter, often a first point of contact between a trademark and the public, bears the following profile pic:

Awesome pic? Yeah, kinda. But is it the image you want connected with your new business as you attempt to convince subscribers to accept not one, but two separate credit card payments each month? Doubtful. If Netflix’s plan is to buy this Twitter account (such a sale is prohibited by Twitter, by the way), I’ll suggest that it would have been accomplished much easier before making a rebrand announcement late on a Sunday night.

YouTube was claimed back in 1996 by an individual in Singapore. I bet somewhere in Singapore (set to overtake Vegas as the world’s second largest gambling hub) they’ve already started a pool on how long before his account is “reclaimed.”

Run a NameChk search before every rebrand…why wouldn’t you?

3. If you’re going to rebrand, then REBRAND!

Netflix is blowing my mind here in a whole different way than the Indianapolis Public Library rebrand. The CEO’s late Sunday night, meandering, apologetic blog post hints at the reasons for rebranding but certainly omits key details (drunkenness, plans for a future sale, etc.) As such, legions of current, loyal subscribers are stuck with the awful rebrand while prospective, future customers that don’t yet exist waltz away with the prominent Netflix mark (and NFLX stock quote).

Did I mention that each customer will now receive two credit card charges per month (one from Netflix, one from Qwikster) instead of just one? Somehow I suspect that benefits somebody (corporations are people, my friend!) other than the Netflix customer.

4. Always use a proper trademark notice (“TM” for common law rights).

Netflix/Qwikster isn’t using a proper trademark notice. Presumably because the CEO made this website late on a Sunday night and neglected to contact his trademark attorney before announcing a major rebrand.

5. When budget permits (ballpark $800-$1200), seek federal registration, thus allowing you to use the registration symbol, ®.

Netflix has the budget to be proactive about trademark protection but they certainly don’t appear to have acted wisely in this situation. There has been no federal trademark filing as of yet (even if Netflix won’t be using the Qwikster name for awhile, it should still file an intent-to-use application). I’m expecting there will be a Qwikster trademark application filed today or as soon as Netflix’s attorneys get to the office and realize what has happened. Otherwise, Netflix is playing fast and loose with trademark law in a way that can only come back to haunt it.

Thoughts? Like the new name? Hate it? Done with Netflix?

[UPDATE: Every rebrand should include a NameChk search. Hat tip to Chris Theisen.]

[UPDATE 10/10/11: Netflix Abandons Qwikster DVD Plan. I wonder if it was because they couldn’t get the Twitter account. Long live Netflix. Long live Qwikster.]

Jimmy Buffett files trademark application for TIGER BLOOD

18 Friday Mar 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Just for Fun, Trademark

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Tiger Blood, Trademark

Quick…everybody file a trademark application for TIGER BLOOD!

That’s the tune Jimmy Buffett is singing as he just filed an application to protect the trademark (which Charlie Sheen recently popularized) in connection with “Vodka” and “Energy Drinks”. But Jimmy isn’t the only one covering that tune as several others have also filed applications in the past few weeks.

Now the previous owner of TIGERS BLOOD (…it isn’t Charlie Sheen) faces a trademark onslaught of nearly epic proportion. Has a trademark ever had to survive the combined cumulative dilutive and tarnishing effects of Charlie Sheen, dietary supplements and now the boozy bard of Margaritaville, Jimmy Buffett? Which, if any, of the new trademark applications will survive to registration? And how long until Charlie Sheen himself files an application?

Here’s a review of the brief yet spectacular trademark history of TIGER BLOOD:

TIGERS BLOOD – Registered: June 3, 2008  Date of First Use: March 5, 2007

IC 032. Syrups for making soft drinks [Owner: Stuart K. McLaren]

TIGER’S BLOOD – Registered: August 31, 2010  Date of First Use: January 4, 2010

IC 034. Tobacco [Social Smoke, Inc]

TIGERBLOOD – Filed March 3, 2011  Date of First Use: March 2, 2011

IC 005. Dietary supplemental drinks, Meal replacement and dietary supplement drink mixes, Dietary supplemental drinks in the nature of vitamin and mineral beverages, Highly caffeinated energy pills

IC 025. Clothing, apparel, sneakers, athletic wear, t shirts. [Michael M. Heyward]

TIGER BLOOD – Filed March 6, 2011  Date of First Use: Intent to Use (ITU)

IC 005. Nutritional Supplements in liquid form and non-liquid form that relieve or prevent fatigue. Dietary Supplements in liquid form and non-liquid form that relieve or prevent fatigue [Crebit LLC]

TIGER BLOOD – Filed March 6, 2011  Date of First Use: ITU

IC 025. Clothing, Namely, Jackets, overcoats, sweaters, T-shirts, shirts, pants, caps, scarfs, belts, and shoes [Moneyworks, Inc.]

TIGER BLOOD – Filed March 7, 2011   Date of First Use: March 3, 2011

IC 005. Dietary and nutritional supplements; Dietary food supplements; Dietary supplemental drinks; Dietary supplements for human consumption; Liquid nutritional supplement. [Harcos, LLC]

TIGER BLOOD – Filed March 8, 2011  Date of First Use: ITU

IC 005. Dietary and nutritional supplements [Advanced Health Sciences, Inc.]

TIGERBLOOD – Filed March 8, 2011  Date of First Use: ITU

IC 032. Beauty beverages, namely, fruit juices and energy drinks containing nutritional supplements; Concentrates and powders used in the preparation of energy drinks and fruit-flavored beverages; Concentrates, syrups or powders used in the preparation of sports and energy drinks; Energy drinks; Non-alcoholic drinks, namely, energy shots; Sports drinks, namely, energy drinks [Michael J. Mueller, Jacquelyn A. Fritz AKA JJ Fritz, Pablo Cerrilla-Benet AKA Pablo Cerrilla, Waldo M. Abbot AKA Mack Abbot]

TIGER BLOOD – Filed March 10, 2011  Date of First Use: January 3, 2011

IC 025. Hooded sweat shirts; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts. [Will Thompson]

TIGER BLOOD TV – Filed March 12, 2011  Date of First Use: March 4, 2011

IC 041. Providing a website for entertainment purposes where users can view and post audio, video, prose and images featuring content related to news, cultural events, pop-culture, arts, music, comedy and sports. [Kimberly A. Arnold, Joel M. Moore]

Never one to miss a beat, even Ol’ Parrothead himself is getting in on the Tiger Blood act. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a new “Tiger Blood” single on the radio before the end of Spring Break.

TIGER BLOOD – Filed March 12, 2011  Date of First Use: ITU

IC 033. Vodka [Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC]

TIGER BLOOD – Filed March 12, 2011  Date of First Use: ITU

IC 032. Energy drinks [Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC]

It turns out that someone at Margaritaville Enterprises must get drunk on filing trademark applications…463 filed so far!

Are there additional TIGER BLOOD applications to come or is this the end of the trend? I know the trademark attorneys for the two registered marks will need to be vigilant in the upcoming weeks. I’ll keep you updated.

Church and the Super Bowl

24 Monday Jan 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright, Peyton Manning, Trademark

The last time Peyton Manning was leading the Indianapolis Colts on a championship run (it’s been awhile), the NFL clamped down on the ability to watch the big game in churches. The NFL sent letters to churches informing them that airing the game would be a violation of the NFL’s copyright and trademark rights. However, two years ago the NFL appeared to call a reverse and allowed viewing in churches under certain conditions.

So what’s the NFL’s policy this year? Since there’s been no indication to the contrary, it seems the NFL is sticking to the policy that churches can air the Super Bowl without violating copyright laws. So start planning those parties!

For those who don’t know, here’s How to Host a Church Super Bowl Party.

University of Missouri Halts Indiana School’s Use of Tiger Logo

06 Wednesday May 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Indiana, Logos, Trademark, Trademark Infringement, University of Missouri, Warsaw, Warsaw Community Schools, WNDU

warsaw

David can’t always afford to fight Goliath.  Warsaw Community Schools (Warsaw, Indiana) recently received a cease and desist letter from the University of Missouri to stop using their tiger logo.

A licensing company determined that it was the same tiger logo as the University of Missouri’s and issued a cease and desist order. picture-21

A few years ago Warsaw re-designed their tiger to modernize it but claim that they didn’t intend to copy Missouri’s.  The logo can be found on Warsaw’s track, trash cans, stationary, staff uniforms, and football uniforms.

Even if the logos aren’t identical, are they confusingly similar?  Any more so than the other 1,000 Tigers athletics programs out there?  Apparently, Warsaw didn’t want to find out and has decided not to challenge Missouri.  Instead, Warsaw will be selecting a new logo…a contest will be held among their students to determine the new logo.  And perhaps a trademark attorney could run a quick clearance search.

Source: WNDU

← Older posts

Categories

  • Artists (21)
  • Authors (19)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (27)
  • Business Law (8)
  • Copyright (291)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (544)
  • Indianapolis (45)
  • Intellectual Property (600)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (536)
  • Musicians (12)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (182)
  • Patent (43)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (55)
  • Southern District of Indiana (325)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (24)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (324)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 76 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...