Time flies when you’re having fun!
September 1 marks five years that Atkins IP has been serving clients with trademark and copyright needs. We couldn’t have done it without you!
In that time, we’ve been in federal court, before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and prepared many an application for registration of our clients’ trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It’s been awesome seeing our startup clients grow, and our larger clients diversify and expand — weathering the Great Recession and taking full advantage of Seattle’s tech explosion. Gay marriage is now rightly protected, and recreational marijuana is legal. Change has been nonstop.
It’s been incredibly satisfying partnering with lawyers and law firms in Seattle and around the world to help our clients accomplish their business goals. A heartfelt thanks to everyone who has supported us along the way. The list is long, and we’re forever in your debt.
Here’s to the next five years!
It pays to be strategic in describing one’s goods and services when applying to register a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Following are some considerations:
- Be vague but accurate. Generally, the vaguer a description is, the more intellectual property “real estate” one gets in the resulting trademark registration. An applicant needs to be accurate, but the more words it uses to describe the goods or services associated with its trademark, the more it limits its claim. To get the broadest claim, say “shirts,” for example, not “women’s long-sleeved silk t-shirts.”
- Consider a narrow description. Though broad claims are often best, sometimes it makes sense to describe goods and services with more specificity. Narrow claims can help put distance between an application and a prior filing, which can reduce the chances of a drawing a likelihood of confusion objection.
- Consider an “off-target” description. Ideally, a trademark owner’s application would cover its core goods or services. But sometimes that’s not possible — either because the trademark owner’s core offerings are illegal at the federal level (say, because they involve marijuana), or because a prior filing would block such an application. An “off-target” description that omits the trademark owner’s core offerings can sometimes make a more limited registration possible. The umbrella of protection that extends from such a registration — even one that does not cover the applicant’s core goods and services — is often much better than no registration at all.
- Minimize descriptiveness and genericness objections. Being smart in describing the goods and services can help avoid a descriptiveness objection. The PTO can deny an application if it immediately conveys information about the associated good or service. While descriptions need to be forthright, trademark owners need not invite this objection with careless wording. In this respect, a vague-but-accurate description can minimize a “merely descriptive” objection. The same is true with avoiding genericness objections. If the applicant defines the goods or services as being the same as the mark, the PTO has no choice but to deny the application.
- Use the PTO’s pre-approved descriptions. Adopting one of the thousands of descriptions the PTO has already blessed reduces the chance the PTO will quibble with the description. Less importantly, but also a bonus, using a pre-approved description enables a TEAS-PLUS filing, which saves $50 per class. Of course, such descriptions are only appropriate if they are accurate and otherwise suit the trademark owner’s needs. Otherwise, a strategic free-form description is the ticket.
Sometimes clients ask if they can get a trademark infringer thrown in jail.
Wouldn’t that be awesome?
However, jail is not usually one of the things a trademark lawyer can deliver. Trademark infringement is mainly a civil wrong, meaning that a trademark owner is limited to civil remedies like an injunction, damages, the profits the infringer wrongly obtained through its infringement, and, sometimes, attorney’s fees.
Trademark statutes also provide that some egregious forms of trademark infringement, like counterfeiting, also constitute criminal acts. However, whether to prosecute such offenses is up to the prosecutor. It’s not up to the aggrieved trademark owner, and it’s not included as part of a civil lawsuit.
Sadly, prosecutions are rare. Unsurprisingly, resources are thin, and prosecutors usually have bigger fish to fry (such as prosecuting murderers and bank robbers).
To increase the chances a prosecutor will exercise her discretion and file criminal charges, I’d suggest making her job as easy as possible. Do your own investigation, collect all of the evidence needed to prove the case, and deliver it to the prosecutor wrapped in a bow. Even then, the chances of getting the offending counterfeiter thrown in jail are pretty slim.
That’s not to say that trademark owners should despair. Though jail isn’t likely, they can still maximize civil remedies to stop the infringement and put themselves in the position they would have been in had the infringement never occurred. That’s usually where trademark owners should devote their resources.
One of the main benefits of federal trademark registration is national coverage.
Once your registration issues, you are presumed to be the exclusive, nationwide, user of your trademark in connection with the goods and services listed on your registration. By illustration, this gives a Seattle owner the right to sue someone in Miami who adopted a confusingly similar mark after the date the Seattle owner applied to register its mark.
That’s right — the rights that flow from a trademark registration relate back to the date a trademark owner files its application for federal registration. That’s the day the world is legally put on notice that the registrant sought to claim national rights in its mark.
Here’s how conflicting trademark rights commonly sort out.
If you sell branded product in Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland, you have automatic common law rights in Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland. That means you can go after copycats in those markets who adopt a name that would likely confuse consumers into believing they are you, are authorized by you, or have some association with you.
But what about the rest of the country? Let’s say the brand owner is called ABC123, and it operates restaurants under that name in Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland. Can it do anything about a new restaurant that opens in San Francisco that is also called ABC123 (or a confusingly similar variant, like ABC124)?
Not without a federal trademark registration. Without obtaining national rights that a registration provides, the restaurant owner probably wouldn’t have any trademark rights in San Francisco available to enforce. In other words, without regularly making sales there, the brand owner probably wouldn’t have any legal basis to complain. That’s why a federal registration is valuable — it gives the trademark owner the legal basis to complain about any conflicting trademark use, anywhere in the United States.
What if there’s another restaurant called ABC123 in Miami that was open at the time the owner of the Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland restaurants applied to register its mark? As long as a registration issues, the Miami owner would locked into the geographic area in which it had been making sales (in this case, Miami) that existed at the time the owner of the Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland restaurants filed its application. This means the Miami owner would have superior trademark rights in Miami, and the Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland owner would have superior rights everywhere else. In this way, a registration whitewashes the map of the United States, giving the registrant superior trademark rights everywhere except for the local areas in which competing users had rights at the time the registrant filed its application.
This usually is the most valuable right a federal trademark registration provides. It can give the brand owner a powerful advantage over its competitors.
Here’s the last installment of “Basics of Trademark Protection in Plain English.” It focuses on “defensive” considerations in protecting trademark rights; remedies; and trademark law resources.
D. “Defensive” Considerations
The “offensive” considerations discussed above focus on the things a trademark owner should consider in order to maximize and enforce its rights. There are “defensive” considerations as well, which mainly focus on not infringing a prior user’s trademark rights. This involves not selecting (and wasting money by investing in) a trademark that would cause a likelihood of consumer confusion with a senior user – both at common law in the same geographic market, and through the statewide or nationwide rights that a prior owner might have through registration. This, in turn, requires one to search the PTO’s database, Google, domain name registrations, and industry databases to learn the trademarks that other sellers have selected, and with which goods and services. Truly comprehensive searches can involve engaging a sophisticated vendor like Thomson Reuters to capture a large universe of relevant hits, which trademark attorneys can analyze to determine the risk of triggering a trademark infringement claim. Again, the relevant jurisdiction’s multi-factor test will control, and it’s up to the trademark lawyer to help her client avoid a likelihood of confusion. While it’s impossible to avoid all risk, doing one’s due diligence can minimize the chance that a prior trademark owner will demand that your client stop using the trademark it has adopted.
A trademark owner’s main remedy in a lawsuit is the injunction – a court order enjoining the trademark wrong from continuing. A trademark owner can also seek lost profits and to disgorge any wrongful profits the infringer received through the infringement. However, proving damages to the reasonable degree of certainty that a court requires can be difficult. Therefore, damages usually take a back seat to the injunction. A successful litigant (either plaintiff or defendant) can also seek an award of its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in the litigation, but such awards are not routine. (Under Washington law, they are discretionary, and under federal law they may only be awarded in “exceptional” cases.) For this reason, both sides usually assume they will pay their own freight in trademark litigation, win, lose, or draw.
At the federal level, trademark law is largely driven by the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq. In Washington, the largely parallel trademark statute is RCW 19.77. An obvious and unavoidable place to start when learning about trademark law is the statutes themselves, and the cases that interpret the statutes. Federal and state case law also flesh out the contours of common law trademark rights, which predate both statutes, are incorporated in them, can operate independent of them. Trademark owners also can look to McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, and Gilson on Trademarks. Both provide encyclopedic, multi-volume analyses of trademark law, including important subtopics like cybersquatting, false advertising, counterfeiting, fair use, online liability, licensing, international trademark rights, and practice before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the PTO’s administrative law arm. One or both of these invaluable treatises are available at Seattle’s law school libraries, as well as at the law libraries of Washington’s state and federal courts.