Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Fair or unfair? That is the question.
Screen shots from Land Rover’s and British Northwest Rover’s Web sites

Plaintiff Land Rover is the well-known luxury-utility vehicle manufacturer from England.

Defendant British Northwest Rover, Ltd., is an Olympia, Wash.-based company that provides restoration and maintenance services of Land Rover vehicles.

On Aug. 1, Land Rover sued British Northwest Rover in the Western District of Washington, claiming that the defendant’s use of “Rover” in its name — and “Land-Rover” in its alleged former name, “British Northwest Land-Rover Co.” — constitutes trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

Will defendant’s alleged use of plaintiff’s trademarks turn out to be nominative fair use that simply communicates the type of vehicle that it restores and repairs? Or does its alleged use go too far, creating a likelihood of misleading the public into believing that it has some sort of affiliation with or permission from Land Rover, such as offering services that Land Rover endorses or authorizes?

The answer to those questions probably will dictate how the case turns out.

Defendant has not yet answered plaintiff’s complaint.

The case cite is Land Rover v. British Northwest Rover, Ltd., No. 12-5682 (W.D. Wash.).

Yours truly on KOMO-4, proving once and for all that
I’m indeed a trademark attorney. And that it hit 74 degrees today.

Seattle’s KOMO-4 News interviewed me today about the Olympic For Hire taxi company (story here).

The company uses the Olympic name and logo here in town, presumably without the U.S. Olympic Committee’s permission.

I think these types of reports are good, because they help educate the public about what’s ok and what’s not ok with trademark use.

Of course, the USOC has few friends in Seattle. With hundreds of businesses proudly calling themselves “Olympic” in honor of our majestic Olympic Mountains, the USOC did itself a disservice when it bullied local merchants into changing their names two years ago when the Games were in Vancouver, B.C., 100 miles to the north.

Bully to them.

But here’s the take-away. Generally, using another entity’s name isn’t a good idea. It may not be fatal, but it’s certainly not a step in the right direction. Using their logo in addition to their name spells problems. And it means big-time problems if you use “Olympic” in your business and you add the Olympic Rings for good measure.

I certainly don’t condemn a business that doesn’t know the rules. But the USOC probably will.

Look for a name and logo change for the cab company in the near future.

Here’s a new one.

My name is my trademark. You infringed it, because I’m an ex-drug dealing rapper. You? You’re no criminal. You even went to college! By adopting my name as your rap persona, you deceive the public into believing that you’re a criminal when you’re not. That’s infringement!

From plaintiff Ricky D. Ross’ complaint: “Plaintiff’s common law, federal trademark and ‘Rick Ross’ trade name, was infringed upon and violated by Defendant William Leonard Roberts II, who trades as, did business as and performed as the ex-drug dealing rapper named Rick Ross, fraudulently with intent to knowingly deceive the public about his true non-drug correctional and law enforcement background, and Defendants joined the scheme by bankrolling him using Roberts’ false Rick Ross name and image in commerce, which was well known in criminal, drug and law enforcement circles that Defendant Roberts either knew of, worked in, or could have learned about while in college, in the rap music culture that emulates and idolizes urban criminals and dealers, in the Black community, or from his correctional officer employment in 1996, or any time thereafter when Plaintiff was in prison, but his name was in the news.”

The Central District of California granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Here’s the Ninth Circuit’s July 11 holding: “Ricky D. Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his federal trademark causes of action under the Lanham Act for failure to state a claim, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ross’s various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ross’s trademark claims because Ross failed to state viable grounds for relief. Further, the district court properly decided the motion to dismiss without oral argument. Ross’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.”

Ross v. Roberts, No. 10-56874, 2012 WL 2832477 (9th Cir. July 11, 2012).

Seattle’s “Olympic” Cab (Photo by STL) 

This time around, the Olympics are in London, not Vancouver.

Now, we caught our share of Olympic guff here in Seattle two years ago (see STL posts here and here). But here’s one trademark that wouldn’t have made the grade here in 2010, even with the festivities 100 miles away. There’s just no call for the Olympic rings, notwithstanding our proud tradition in these parts of calling most everything “Olympic” (in honor of our majestic Olympic Mountains, of course). Just ask Terri Welles (not perfectly on point, but you get the idea).

But then again, the United States Olympic Committee probably isn’t focused on these parts right about now.

Next Friday, I’m giving my annual “Introduction to U.S. Trademark Law” presentation to foreign patent lawyers attending the Center for the Advanced Study and Research on Intellectual Property’s Intellectual Property Summer Institute at the University of Washington School of Law.

It’s pretty basic, but that’s the point. If you’re a trademark newbie, this is a good place to get a nuts-and-bolts idea of what U.S. trademark law is all about. Now, you won’t get the benefit of my scintillating and extremely entertaining commentary (unless you attend the program), but hopefully these slides will point you in the right direction.

Note that the upload process caused some minor irregularities in formatting. No need to be distracted!