Historically, trademark applicants have generally had six (6) months to respond to an Office Action issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the response to be considered timely. This is a lengthy period, but at times, this lengthy time period could be beneficial to a client from a strategic standpoint.
However, the USPTO recently shortened this response period significantly beginning this month. For USPTO Office Actions issued as of December 3, 2022, applicants have three (3) months to respond to an USPTO Office Action. This shortening will be very helpful in moving applications along faster and in removing applications where applicants do not respond. For instance, at times a previously filed trademark application may be blocking registration for another applicant’s mark. Although one may sense that the blocking previously filed application will not be able to reach registration successfully (either due to an office action, going out of business, etc.), that previously filed application will sit on the record for six (6) months, and then for an additional two (2) month revival period. Meanwhile, the subsequent applicant’s trademark application sits on suspension throughout this time period, except in certain situations where there is a successful effort in getting the previously filed applicant to abandon its application or consent to the subsequent applicant’s registration. By cutting the response period in half, the previously filed application can be removed from blocking others who are seeking registration.
At times, however, applicants may need more time than 3 months to respond or the prior 6-month response may be beneficial for the applicant from a strategic standpoint. Thankfully, the USPTO will still allow an applicant to have the full six (6) months to respond to its Office Action; however, to obtain this additional time period, an applicant must request a three (3) month extension and pay a fee for the extension, which is currently $125.
For the time being, this shortened response period applies to trademark applications only – preregistration, and not post-registration office actions. The USPTO will not implement this shortened time-period for post-registration Office Actions until October 7, 2023.
From a practitioner’s standpoint, it will be important to advise clients of this shortened time frame upon receipt of an office action, and to advise clients that the remaining three (3) month period is still available when needed, but at an additional cost. Further, practitioners will want to ensure that their internal docketing and deadline systems are updated to reflect the shortened time-period, so that they are up to date on their clients’ trademark applications. If you have any questions, please feel to contact Kimberly Grimsley or Jennifer Mumm.
Bridge the GapSci, LLC is a nonprofit organization that came to fruition in 2015 when five Ph.D. students at Penn State had a vision of helping younger generations in West Africa to learn about science by delivering research supplies to schools. In fact, they pitched this idea at Pennsylvania State University’s Ag Springboard competition and won the first place prize of $7,500 to fund their venture. They then traveled to Ghana, a country in the subregion of West Africa, to begin forming relationships with schools that lacked working equipment or any equipment at all, as is prominent throughout the country. By getting students tools they needed at no cost to the schools, the five then-doctoral students hoped that the opportunity to work hands-on in science could lead to more opportunities for the children in Ghana.
Shortly after winning Penn State College’s Ag Springboard competition, the team at Oliver & Grimsley began working with Bridge the GapSci as a pro-bono client.
COVID-19 had a significant impact on Bridge the GapSci’s efforts in that travel was banned to various countries, including Ghana, but these delays did not discourage them. In June of this year, they were successful in their first shipment of school supplies and science kits to St. Gregory Senior High School in Budaburam, Ghana. They hope to continue their efforts with St. Gregory Senior High School and to expand to more and more schools in the region. Through their tremendous commitment and efforts, co-directors and present-day doctors Sarah Afua Owusu Cannon, Josephine Garban, Shawntawnee Collins, Jamaal James, and Kerry Belton have created an organization that will undoubtedly help make progress toward a better future.
Oliver & Grimsley is honored to work with them throughout this mission and we look forward watching them continue in this incredible mission. You can follow their journey on Facebook.
Oftentimes, Oliver & Grimsley will hear from our trademark clients about letters they received regarding their marks coming from what appear to be official sources. These letters will ask that clients make a payment, upwards of hundreds of dollars or more, and indicating their marks are about to expire, or offering to provide some other service such as adding the mark to a directory. These letters are all under the guise of being from “The United States Trademark Center,” or even the “Patent and Trademark Office,” which are third parties that are unaffiliated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. When we hear from a client of ours about these letters, we know that the letters are from companies that have no connection with the official U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; rather, these are companies that are attempting to mislead new trademark applicants and registrants into thinking the notice is official, and trying to scam trademark holders into paying hundreds of dollars or more to them for unnecessary or overinflated services.
If you have filed for a federal trademark registration on your own, it can be very difficult to know what is legitimate. Any correspondence regarding deadlines is sent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and is typically sent via email with an @uspto.gov email address. If you have an attorney of record listed on your trademark application or registration, and your attorney is listed as the attorney of record and the correspondent on your application, official communications from the USPTO will go directly to your attorney of record on your behalf rather than being sent directly to you. Thus, in this situation, it should be a red flag if you receive a notice, as your attorney should be receiving all communications from the USPTO for you. In addition, these companies will sometimes try to use similar names to the USPTO to purposefully confuse any recipient. Below are some examples of scam companies that the USPTO lists on its website:
In an attempt to curb the growing number of these scams, one step that the USPTO is taking is seeking federal trademark registration of its own name. Applications were filed by the Department of Commerce on the USPTO’s behalf to register “USPTO” and “UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,” as well as applications for two design marks in order to cover the USPTO’s logos. By seeking federal trademark protection, the USPTO hopes to broaden its legal options for dealing with such infringers, as it warns that these scams are becoming more sophisticated as they multiply.
When you receive unfamiliar notices like the examples listed above that request money or any solicitation for services regarding your trademark, it is important to look into who exactly is sending it. You can check the link provided by the USPTO to see if it is one of these misleading scams they are already aware of, or a call to a trademark attorney can also be very helpful, as they will almost immediately recognize a scam. Also, know that if you have an attorney listed as the attorney of record and correspondent on your trademark applications or registrations, you should not be receiving such correspondence, as your attorney would be receiving all official communications on your behalf. In addition, if you have an attorney overseeing your trademarks, your attorney can assist by keeping track of your deadlines for you.
Earlier this month, the Lanham Act saw its 75th Anniversary. On July 5th, 1947, the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act, went into effect after being signed by President Harry S. Truman the year prior. The Lanham Act created the modern day national trademark registration system and enforced federal protections for trademark holders. Expanded upon throughout the decades, it has been a critical piece of trademark legislation for the last seventy-five years.
Trademarks are around us every day – they present themselves on the toothpaste we use in the morning to the garbage bags we take out at night. The idea of trademarks dates back to before the common era, wherein manufacturers of goods would leave identifying symbols on their products. Artifacts from Rome have been found with engraved marks of initials and names of what are presumed to be the makers. Historians note that blacksmiths who made swords for the Roman Empire were the first to use trademarks.
Prior to the Lanham Act, federally enforced trademark legislation was somewhat ineffective and state statutes held most of the burden. In addition, trademarks did not expire, regardless of their use. Once the Lanham Act was enacted, it provided the procedures for federally registering trademarks and maintaining those registrations. The Lanham Act also gives trademark holders federal jurisdiction in enforcing their rights to the mark against infringers, including unregistered trademark infringement. In addition, the Lanham Act provides a cause of action for trademark dilution, cybersquatting, unfair competition and false advertising. An example of the use of the Lanham Act in enforcing rights against false advertising claims is seen in General Mills, Inc. v. Chobani, LLC, 158 F. Supp. 3d 106 (N.D.N.Y. 2016); Chobani, LLC v. Dannon Company, Inc., 157 F. Supp. 3d 190 (N.D.N.Y. 2016). In 2016, yogurt makers Dannon and General Mills (Yoplait) sued their yogurt competitor Chobani for violations under the Lanham Act for commercials that featured products from the brands in poor light. The ads mentioned ingredients such as sucralose being used in Dannon Light & Fit Greek yogurt and potassium sorbate in Yoplait Greek 100 and implied both were not safe for consumptions; and the court ordered Chobani to pull the ads containing the false message.
The Lanham Act is an important piece of legislation in the world of trademarks. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) celebrates the anniversary today with a webinar featuring guest speakers such as Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, Representative Ted Deutch of Florida and more.
On June 30, 2020, the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in the landmark trademark case United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v. Booking .com.591 U.S. (2020). This decision may be helpful for those who wish to seek a federal trademark registration where the primary mark includes a top level domain (TLD) identifier, such as “.com” and where the domain name itself may be generic or highly descriptive of the service offered at that domain. Prior to this decision the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) had taken the position that such marks would not be eligible for registration because of the generic nature of the term(s) preceding the TLD portion of the domain (the portion preceding .com). However, certain issues, such as the issue of “consumer perception,” as discussed below, will most certainly be the subject of debate and dispute between these trademark applicants and the PTO.
In this case the online travel agency Booking.com sought to register the trademark BOOKING.COM related to its website for lodging reservations and related services and was denied registration by the PTO. The PTO determined that BOOKING.COM was a generic term not entitled to federal trademark registration. Generic terms can never be registered because they merely identify the class of service or product being offered and not the source of that product or service. Accordingly, it was the PTO’s position that BOOKING merely identified the class of service of making or “booking” a lodging reservation and .COM referred to a website.
Booking.com appealed the PTO’s decision to the District Court which ruled in Booking.com’s favor. The PTO then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals which also ruled in Booking.com’s favor. The PTO made its final appeal to the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case.
Affirming both the District Court and Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that “[a] term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if [emphasis added] the term has that meaning to consumers.” Thus, if it is determined that consumers do not find “generic.com” to be generic to a class of goods or services, but rather unique to goods or services of the entity seeking the trademark, the mark is eligible for registration. In this case, it was determined by the lower courts and uncontested by the PTO before the Supreme Court that consumers did not think BOOKING.COM referred to online hotel-registrations as a class, but rather specifically to the online travel agency Booking.com. Thus, BOOKING.COM, for online lodging registration services, is entitled to federal trademark protection on the principal trademark registry.
As a result of this Supreme Court decision, consumer perception will determine whether a “generic.com” mark can be a registered trademark. The question that will be asked with every such trademark application is “what do consumers think ‘generic.com’ means?” This begs the question, “how do we determine what consumers think something means?” The Supreme Court gives us some insight into this issue by stating that “[e]vidence…can include not only consumer surveys, but also dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors, and any other source of evidence bearing on how consumers perceive a term’s meaning.” The Supreme Court does offer a word of caution with regard to surveys. “Surveys can be helpful evidence of consumer perception but require care in their design and interpretation.”
There will now likely be a flurry of trademark applications for “generic.com” marks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. While the ruling is certainly favorable to trademark applicants, consumer perception and the method(s) used to try and determine what consumers think something means should be carefully considered beforehand.
Have you been sitting in your house, properly adhering to stay-at-home standards, and thinking to yourself, “I can’t wait to get some sweet coronavirus merch?” That is at least what recent trademark filers have assumed you were thinking, anyway. Since the beginning of 2020, fifty-three (53) trademark applications have been filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) containing the word “CORONAVIRUS”, and with one hundred seventy-six (176) more being filed containing “COVID.”
The majority of the trademark applications being filed are for printed materials like t-shirts or bumper stickers. “I SURVIVED THE CORONOAVIRUS,” “I SURVIVED COVID-19,” “CATS AGAINST COVID-19,” and “CORONAVIRUS FREE” are just a few examples. A quick search on the website Redbubble, a place where artists upload their designs to be printed on various items and sold, shows a litany of products already on the market.
While it is understandable that budding entrepreneurs may be looking to the current pandemic as a way to make a profit during this difficult economic time and achieve something positive, not every use of “CORONAVIRUS” or “COVID-19” is entitled to federal trademark protection. So, it seems like a good time to take a brief moment to highlight several of the issues you should consider as you seek federal trademark protection, coronavirus-related or otherwise.
First: what is a trademark? It is not just a clever saying – although that could be the beginning concept– but more is needed to establish trademark rights A trademark is a word, phrase, design or combination of both that is used in connection with goods or services and identifies and distinguishes the source of the good or services of one party from those of others. Consumers, for example, want to know when they’re drinking a genuine COCA-COLA product, not someone else’s inferior product with an infringing name slapped on it. Thus, consumers associate you as the source of a product or a service when your trademark appears on that product or service. By applying your trademark to your products or services, for example on a clothing line or a video game product, or in connection with consulting services or health-related services, you are building rights in your trademark.
Also, at the time you file your trademark application, you must either (1) be using the mark in a trademark sense in interstate commerce (that is, actually selling your goods or rendering services to customers between more than one state or U.S. territory, or in commerce between the U.S. and another country); or (2) have a bona fide good faith intent to do so. You cannot obtain a registered trademark by merely requesting a “place holder” so no one else can use the mark on a particular good or service when you do not have a bona fide good faith intent to use the mark. To show a bona fide good faith intent, you should have documentation to back up your intent, such as marketing plans and internal business meeting memoranda.
Further, prior to filing, it would be in your best interest to make sure the mark is available for registration. If a third party has started using an identical or confusingly similar trademark before you in connection with the same or related goods or services, they would be the senior user of the mark and would have priority rights over you. The United States is a use-based nation, meaning that trademark rights are created through the use of the trademark, and not necessarily through registration. For this reason, a trademark search for the availability of a trademark – although not mandatory – is extremely beneficial in determining if your trademark is eligible for registration.
This brings us to an important point regarding use of the trademark. When a trademark is applied to your goods or services, the mark should be used in a “trademark sense” as opposed to an ornamental sense. For example, a t-shirt design with the trademark placed largely front and center would not be considered a trademark use; rather, it would be seen merely as an ornamental use. To function as a trademark, the mark would need to be displayed in a certain way for example, a properly used trademark would be displayed on clothing on its tag or label. The mark could also be displayed on the clothing item itself, usually in a smaller size above the breast, behind the neck, or son the arm of the shirt). For services, the trademark would be used in connection with the services – for instance, on one’s website or brochures describing the services provided under the trademark. A trademark will not register on the Patent and Trademark Office’s Principal Register (where distinctive marks are registered) if it considered merely decorative or “ornamental.”
Also, when considering whether to seek trademark registration, you may wish to consider how long you intend to use the mark, as the registration process can take 9-12 months if all goes smoothly at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and there are no issues with the mark. During that period, you can use the TM symbol on your trademark, but you cannot use the registration symbol until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office actually issues a registration certificate. Further, there are continued costs associated with maintaining the trademark after registration. As an example, while we may all be thinking about COVID-19 now, hopefully down the road when we are all allowed to see each other’s bright and shining faces in public again, the initial phase of “covidwear” may fade out (as we hope the virus phases out), and you may no longer have a viable business interest in selling your goods or services under that mark. If you have any questions, please contact Kimberly Grimsley email@example.com or Jennifer Mumm firstname.lastname@example.org at Oliver & Grimsley.