• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trademark

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Idylwilde v. Umpqua Feather Merchants

13 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Contracts and Prospective Economic Advantage, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Trade Dress Infringement, Trademark and Trade Dress Dilution, Unjust Enrichment

Portland-based Idylwilde designs, manufactures, markets, brands, and sells flies for the global fly fishing industry. According to the Complaint, “Idylwilde sells to a very sophisticated buyer of flies where the stylized portrayal of insect species, sex, and maturity level of the hatch make a difference the customer is willing to pay for based on the fly designer’s style.”

The Complaint is long but it has a little bit of everything so it’s worth a read. This will be an interesting case to monitor.

Idylwilde, Inc. et al v. Umpqua Feather Merchants, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-02009-HZ
File Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Plaintiff: Idylwilde, Inc., Zach Mertens
Plaintiff Counsel: Katherine R. Heekin of The Heekin Law Firm
Defendant: Umpqua Feather Merchants, LLC, Mirabel, Inc., Bien Tan, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, and Unfair Competition, Trademark and Trade Dress Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Intentional Interference with Contracts and Prospective Economic Advantage, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

View this document on Scribd

 

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – All Care in Home Support Service v. Mid Rogue Independent Physician Association

12 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cancellation of Federal Trademark Registrations, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Oregon State Trademark Infringement, Owen M. Panner

All Care in Home Support Service, Inc. v. Mid Rogue Independent Physician Association, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-02004-PA
File Date: Monday, November 11, 2013
Plaintiff: All Care in Home Support Service, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Peter E. Heuser, Matthew R. Wilmot of Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt PC
Defendant: Mid Rogue Independent Physician Association, Inc.
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Oregon State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Cancellation of Federal Trademark Registrations
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Owen M. Panner

View this document on Scribd

New TMEP Update Released by USPTO

04 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Legislation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

TMEP

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013, the Office issued the October 2013 update of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).  The update (which is posted on the USPTO website here), includes precedential case law and other changes that have occurred since the April 2013 TMEP revision.  In a few areas, existing procedures have been revised or new procedures have been added.  For a listing of all the changes, see Changes in the TMEP October 2013 Edition.

The TMEP is published to provide trademark examining attorneys in the USPTO, trademark applicants, and attorneys and representatives for trademark applicants with a reference work on the practices and procedures relative to prosecution of applications to register marks in the USPTO. The TMEP contains guidelines for Examining Attorneys and materials in the nature of information and interpretation, and outlines the procedures which Examining Attorneys are required or authorized to follow in the examination of trademark applications.

October 2013 TMEP: http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2013/d1e2.xml

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Upsource, LLC v. Upsource, Inc.

21 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Janice M. Stewart, Litigation Update

This trademark dispute is between Upsource, LLC, an Oregon-based internet marketing company and Upsource, Inc., a Massachusetts-based call center and customer service outsourcing company, over the use rights to the mark Upsource and the domain name upsource.com. In response to a recent cease-and-desist letter, the Oregon-based Upsource, LLC, seeks a declaration that its use of the Upsource mark and upsource.com domain name is not violative of the rights of Upsource the call center.

Upsource, LLC v. Upsource, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01862-ST
File Date: Friday, October 18, 2013
Plaintiff: Upsource, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Phil A. Nelson of Slinde & Nelson LLC
Defendant: Upsource, Inc.
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

View this document on Scribd

Trademark Protection of Local Government Insignias

14 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Here’s a trademark ruling  from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that will interest local government officials.

Both the City of Houston and the District of Columbia applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for federal registration of their respective official insignias. The USPTO denied their applications. Both plaintiffs appealed the denials and their appeals were addressed together in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Houston argued that a government entity is not an “applicant” prohibited by § 2(b) of the Lanham Act to register an insignia as a trademark. The District argued that § 2(b) must be read to not prohibit a governmental entity from registering an insignia so as to not conflict with the Paris Convention. The court determined that the statute is unambiguous and held that a government entity cannot register its own insignia as a trademark.

Holding: A local government entity may not obtain a federal trademark registration for the entity’s official insignia.

Unknown           Seal-DC

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Hinrichs, Proudfoot and Skov v. McBassi and Company

08 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anna J. Brown, Litigation Update, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Hinrichs, Proudfoot and Skov, Inc. v. McBassi and Company, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01784
File Date: Monday, October 07, 2013
Plaintiff: Hinrichs, Proudfoot and Skov, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Kevin M. Hayes of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
Defendant: McBassi and Company, Inc.
Cause: Unfair Competition, Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Anna J. Brown

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Pacific Cargo Control v. Quality Chain Corporation

02 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Michael W. Mosman, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices

Pacific Cargo Control, Inc. v. Quality Chain Corporation

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01750-MO
File Date: Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Plaintiff: Pacific Cargo Control, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Hillary A. Brooks, Delfina S. Homen of Marger Johnson & McCollom, PC
Defendant: Quality Chain Corporation
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

View this document on Scribd

Oregon State Trademark Registration

30 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Clients often inquire whether they should register their trademarks at the State or Federal level.  Starting with the assumption that even small local businesses may encounter a challenge to their trademark in the future, I generally try to impress upon them the advantages of federal registration.  After all, many of my clients end up being successful and seek to expand outside of Oregon’s borders. With the exponential growth of “e-commerce,” the Internet is providing opportunities for national and global expansion, even for the smallest Oregon businesses.  It is therefore important for businesses of all types and sizes to choose and protect their trademarks with care…often this can mean protection at BOTH the State and Federal level.

Here’s a quick primer on registration of an Oregon State Trademark:

Trademarks are registered with the Oregon Secretary of State. There is a non-refundable fee of $50 for filing a trademark application, and the registration must be renewed every 5 years.

Oregon

Registration of a trademark with the Oregon Secretary of State creates a legal presumption of the registrant’s ownership of the mark and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in Oregon commerce in connection with the goods or services described in the application.  (A federal registration would protect your trademark in all 50 states.)

The Oregon Trademark Act (ORS 647) protects words, names, symbols or designs, or any combinations thereof when they are used to distinguish the source of the goods or services rendered by one party from the goods or services of another party. Marks are checked against other marks registered in Oregon, but not against corporate, fictitious, or assumed names.

Oregon trademark rights arise from actual use of the mark in commerce, i.e. there are no “intent-to-use” applications.

A mark cannot be registered until it has been used in Oregon. Oregon defines a mark being “used” when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or when it is used to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from the services of others, and such goods or services are sold, distributed, or rendered in Oregon.

So what are some of the main benefits of state registration over federal registration?  It’s cheaper (State – $50/class vs. Federal – $275/class) and quicker.  I’ve seen turnaround of weeks, not months or years as with the USPTO.  State registration can be a good remedy for a purely local entity.  State registration provides an increased level of trademark protection…at least you can claim protection on your “home turf.”  However, in the long run, I’d recommend that any entity which anticipates expanding outside of Oregon, particularly via Internet “e-commerce,” should seek federal trademark registration to best protect their valuable trademark rights.

I look forward to hearing from proponents of State registration…how has an Oregon State registration uniquely benefitted either you or your clients?

Basics of U.S. Trademark Registration

29 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

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

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.

However, the reality of this economy is that small businesses, non-profits and individuals aren’t able to do everything a lawyer says they SHOULD do.  In Oregon and abroad, the bottom line counts now more than ever.  Thousands spent on obtaining a trademark registration are thousands not spent on other aspects of your business, like R&D, Marketing or Payroll.  As such, I often find it helpful to discuss with clients not only what they SHOULD do, but what they CAN do and what they MUST do.

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 lay out 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 PTO 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 PTO’s 2013 Fee Schedule, last revised 9/4/13) 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 $625.  Add attorney time to review and report on the results.

Application Filing Fee – The official filing fee is $275-$375 (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 procedure 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 $300 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 and services.  On top of the PTO fees, you’ll be paying your trademark attorney for time spent preparing documents and communicating with the PTO.  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.

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Coast Distribution System v. Buyers Products Company

25 Wednesday Sep 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Functionality, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

The Coast Distribution System Inc. v. Buyers Products Company

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01699-HZ
File Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Plaintiff: The Coast Distribution System Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Charles H. DeVoe, David C. Bourgeau, III, Thomas James Romano of Kolish Hartwell, PC
Defendant: Buyers Products Company
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 147 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...