Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Last night was the long-awaited Seattle Law Blogger Meetup at my firm, Graham & Dunn. We had a nice turnout — 15 law bloggers and five “aspiring” law bloggers. We had a spirited two-hour discussion, and about half hung around for another hour, so we must have been having fun. I know I was.

Left to right: Conrad Saam, Chad Smith, Venkat Balasubramani
Larry Munn, and Mark Walters. Photo credit: Erin Anderson

My only frustration was a good one — there was so much to talk about, with so many great people, and we had so little time. In the end, we agreed to make gatherings like this a regular event. Once a year probably isn’t enough.

Award for longest distance traveled goes out to Larry Munn and Jeffrey Vicq from the Canadian Trademark Blog, who came all the way from Vancouver, BC.

Several attendees have already posted summaries of the event, so I’ll leave further recapping to them:

• Avvo’s Avvo Blog post here;
• Rod Stephens’ Employment Advisory Blog post here; and
• Venkat Balasubramani’s Spam Notes post here.

Thanks to everyone who attended! I’m looking forward to seeing everyone again soon!!

On Jan. 15, yours truly will host what I hope will become an annual event — the Seattle Law Blogger Meetup. The event is intended for local law bloggers to socialize and discuss the blogging experience. The agenda is open, but I personally want to hear what my fellow law bloggers have to say about the following:

• Why do you blog?
• What goals do you have?
• What’s been your most rewarding experience?
• What’s been your biggest disappointment?
• What’s been your biggest challenge?
• How did you overcome it?
• If there is anything you could change about your blog, what would it be?
• Where do you see legal blogging going in the future?

Of course, I’m also interested in learning new tips on developing new content, expanding readership, avoiding problems in court, and maintaining law firm support.

Based on RSVPs, it looks like we’ll have a good turnout, including many from my “Seattle Law Blogs” blog roll:

• Venkat Balasubramani of Spam Notes;
• Sarah Bird of the Daily SEO Blog; 
• Eric Chiappinelli of Cases and Materials on Business Entities;
• Dan Harris of the China Law Blog;
• Bill Marler and Suzanne Schreck of the Marler Blog;
• Larry Munn and Jeffrey Vicq of Vancouver, BC’s Canadian Trademark Blog;
• Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs;
• Jill Pugh of the Employment Law Blog;
• Michael Rice of Coderights;
• Mark Walters of the Washington State Patent Law Blog; and
• Mary Whisner of Trial Ad (and other) Notes.

I really can’t wait to tap into this collective wisdom. I hope to share some of what I learned in my next post. Advance thanks to Eric Goldman, organizer of the Bay Area Blawgers Meetup, whose great idea for this event I, uh, borrowed.

The U.S. Olympic Committee’s demands of Washington’s Olympic Cellars Winery has made a lot of news around here lately. On Dec. 30, the Peninsula Daily News broke the story. Then came National Public radio affiliate KUOW’s take on Jan. 9, followed by an article in the Seattle Times on Jan. 11.

The crux of the story is the USOC has demanded that the winery, which has used “Olympic” in its name for 15 years, make more explicit reference to the Olympic Peninsula on its Web site and stop selling to persons who live outside western Washington if they have not visited the winery.

Olympic Cellars has agreed to change its Web site but has not agreed to restrict its sales. Its use of the Internet to market its wines outside western Washington would not seem to come as a surprise to the USOC, which reportedly gave the winery permission to register its olympiccellars.com domain name in 1999.

Olympic Cellars owner Kathy Charlton with letters from the USOC
Photo credit: Keith Thorpe/Peninsula Daily News

As STL has discussed here and here, the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act gives the USOC near monopoly rights over the use of “Olympic” in commerce. The Act excepts certain use of the word by western Washington businesses as long as such use outside western Washington is not “substantial.” The problem is the Act was passed in 1998 and does not address marketing on the Internet. And, as Washington business owners are learning, the USOC does not appear to be terribly selective in its enforcement.

The USOC for its part says it “in no way intends to be difficult or heavy-handed.” 

However, Olympic Cellars owner Kathy Charlton says her company’s marketing outside western Washington is “negligible.” The boutique winery only makes about 13,000 cases per year.

The Peninsula Daily News says Olympic Cellars sought help from Congressman Norm Dicks, whose district includes part of the Olympic Peninsula, to no avail. Sen. Maria Cantwell has not heard from the winery but a spokesperson says her office would be willing to look into the issue.

If that doesn’t work, the winery says it may change its name to “Dungeness,” but it is reluctant to do so because the “Olympic” name “is our heritage.”

Jason Bausher, owner of the Olympic Mountain School and publisher of the “Best of the Olympic Peninsula” travel guide, has done a little research since getting his first cease-and-desist letter from the U.S. Olympic Committee regarding his use of the word “Olympic.”

His conclusion: with almost 500 other businesses named “Olympic,” western Washington will face an economic crisis if the USOC sues each business that doesn’t agree to change its name.

To prove his point, Mr. Bausher compiled a list identifying the affected businesses and a table (thumbnail below) indicating where each is located. Not surprisingly, most are based on the Olympic Peninsula, near Seattle, or near Olympia. Port Angeles leads all cities with 72 “Olympic”-named businesses, followed by Seattle (44), Sequim (36), Bremerton (29), and Olympia (28).

Distribution of “Olympic” businesses in western Washington
(click for PDF)

“The U.S. Olympic Committee threatens to cripple Washington’s economy by suing businesses named in honor of our Olympic Peninsula,” Mr. Bausher says. “The 2010 Winter Games will come and go, but the Olympic name has been Washington’s heritage since 1788.”

The source of the USOC’s authority stems from the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act of 1998, in which Congress essentially gave the USOC monopoly rights over the word “Olympic” — even if no likelihood of confusion with the sports organization exists.

The statute excepts uses of the word before Sept. 21, 1950, and for businesses, goods, or services that were named “Olympic” before Feb. 6, 1998, as long as it’s clear the name refers to the “mountains or geographical region of the same name,” and “such business, goods, or services are operated, sold, and marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial.”

Jason Bausher with his “Best of the Olympic Peninsula” guide
to which the USOC objects. (Photo credit: Andrei Pungovschi/AP)

According to Mr. Bausher, the problem is the USOC cites Internet presence as evidence that a company is operating, selling, and marketing outside western Washington. Mr. Bausher’s study found that of the companies using “Olympic” in their name, almost 200 have Web sites. He says USOC lawyers argue Internet traffic through such sites gives it the power to sue.

With the 2010 winter Olympics hosted 100 miles away in Vancouver, B.C., I have a feeling that the USOC’s presence in Washington (heavy-handed as it appears to be) will be felt by local trademark owners for some time to come.

In that vein, this weekend I’ll discuss the USOC’s dispute with Washington’s Olympic Cellars winery, the recent media reports of which helped motivate Mr. Bausher to speak out.

N.B. If Mr. Bausher’s name (or face) looks familiar, it may be because the Seattle Times reported on the USOC’s dispute with him last August. (STL’s follow-up post here.)

On Dec. 28, Seattle-based Summit Capital Group, LLC, and affiliated financial services companies filed suit in the Western District against the Boston-based Summit Partners, LP, venture capital firm, seeking a declaration of non-infringement and non-dilution of the defendant’s SUMMIT PARTNERS trademark.

The complaint states: “Plaintiffs or its affiliates have done business under the tradename SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS since at least 1986. One or more of the Plaintiffs registered the tradename, SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS, with the Washington State corporate registry in 1996 and has used that tradename continuously, without interruption, ever since.”

The complaint further states that defendant sent plaintiffs a letter in Sept. 2007 claiming that plaintiffs’ use of SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS infringes upon and dilutes defendant’s rights in several trademarks and trade names. The letter, which plaintiffs attached to their complaint, specifies that defendant claims that SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS is confusingly similar to defendant’s SUMMIT PARTNERS, SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS, and SUMMIT PARTNERS VENTURE FUND names and marks. 

Defendant’s letter claims a first-use date of 1984.

Defendant has not yet filed its answer.

The case cite is Summit Capital Group, LLC v. Summit Partners, LP, No. 07-2082 (W.D. Wash.).