Tag Archive for: Trademark

Needless Trademark Spat In Canada At Least Has Exactly As Polite Ending As You’d Expect

/in

It probably shouldn’t be all that surprising that there is a decent volume of trademark disputes that occur over restaurant menu items. Somewhat like the craft beer industry, the restaurant industry has for a long, long time looked toward creative output for menu items as a way to stand out. Because there are only so many ways you can name food or a dish, occasionally this creative naming practice causes trademark issues.

A recent example of this occurred in Canada, where multiple diners were making omelettes and calling them “mish-mash.” Beauty’s is a Montreal staple that has served a mish-mash omelette, composed of the normal egg ingredients alongside items like hotdogs, peppers, and salami, for several decades. It was only in 1989, though, that Beauty’s got a trademark on the name. Other diners, such as Cosmos and Bagel Etc., have offered up their own mish-mash omelettes going as far back as the early 1980s. Despite the trademark, there were no disputes over the menu items until this year, when Beauty’s sent C&D notices to several restaurants.

So last month Beauty’s sent out cease-and-desist letters from its lawyers to prevent Cosmo’s and Bagel Etc., among others, from having its trademarked Mish-Mash, or variations of the Mish-Mash name, on their menus.  

Beauty’s has also requested those who use the Mish-Mash name to make a goodwill donation of $ 100 to the Jewish General Hospital.

By all accounts, the C&D notices were as polite and relatively benign as you would expect to come from a Canadian business. Still, it’s worth wondering aloud both why such notices needed to be sent given the peaceful coexistance of these restaurants for decades, as well as whether Beauty’s claim is actually valid, considering the length of time during which it failed to police its trademark at all. Were these other restaurants to decide to argue in court that the term had become generic for Beauty’s lack of policing, it’s hard to see how they wouldn’t win that argument on the merits.

Instead, however, both Cosmos and Bagels Etc. responded with equal congeniality.

Regardless, it’s worth noting that Bagel Etc. and Cosmo’s have agreed to the cease-and-desist demand and have now changed the names of their Mish-Mash creations — with no fuss. The identities of the other eateries affected are not yet known, so it’s not certain if they will challenge.

Furthermore, Bagel Etc. co-owner Simon Rosson has also obliged with the $ 100 donation to the Jewish General Hospital, and even made out his money-order contribution as coming from Beauty’s and not Bagel Etc., so Beauty’s could get the resultant tax receipt.

Rosson has no issue with the Beauty’s request, considering it has the trademark, but wonders, like so many others, why this issue is coming up now.

“I just find it a little weird with the whole lawyer’s letter,” Rosson says. “Just give me a call and I’d do it, no problem.”

And so it all ends with very little fuss. That doesn’t change the facts, however, including that the sudden decision to police a trademark, even politely, is itself annoying.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

California Man Gets Sued After Trying To Trademark Bully A Theme Park

/in

We’ve seen a great many examples of trademark lawsuits here at Techdirt. In most cases, those lawsuits are levied by individuals and companies that are the trademark bully, but that’s not always the case. We also see plenty of suits that are raised in defense of such bullying, in which the entity suing asks the court to simply affirm that its use is not infringing. Trademark bullies, of course, don’t like when that sort of thing happens.

Meet Scott D’Avanzo of California. Scott did a pretty cool thing and created a haunted house attraction in his garage, naming it the “Mystic Motel.” Then he came across the plans of the Silver Dollar City theme park near Branson for its new “Mystic River Falls” water rafting ride. At that point, he did the very un-cool thing of contacting Mystic River over the trademark he had on his haunted house and demanding to speak about the name of the new ride.

Scott D’Avanzo said he sent Silver Dollar City a letter earlier this year asking the theme park to contact him about the name, which he claims is similar to the “Mystic Motel” name he used for a haunted house attraction he started out of his garage.

“You have to police your trademarks,” D’Avanzo said. “That’s all we were doing is protecting what was ours.”

D’Avanzo said he has sent many letters to other businesses that are similar to the one he sent Silver Dollar City. He said his letters are usually followed by a phone call where the two parties can work out some parameters for use of the name.

Silver Dollar City, however, didn’t bend the knee to D’Avanzo. Instead, the theme park filed a lawsuit, seeking to have the court declare that the name of its ride at a large-ish theme park doesn’t somehow violate the trademark rights for a garage-based haunted house. The reported arguments Silver Dollar City makes are the ones you would expect; namely, that its use of the word “Mystic” isn’t going to cause confusion among the public for a “family project and neighborhood attraction.” That’s all the theme park wants: the reasonable use of the name of its ride.

But Silver Dollar City doesn’t stop there. The theme park also points out that D’Avanzo didn’t oppose its trademark application, didn’t say a word about it until it came time for a money-grab, and, oh, D’Avanzo destroyed his Mystic Motel setup entirely some time ago.

Upon information and belief, both the “Mystic Motel” “dark house” and the Christmas-themed “Journey to Polar Point” family projects were destroyed or deconstructed at some time. Upon information and belief, the “Mystic Motel” and “Journey to Polar Point” marks were not in continuous use with those projects during certain years. Upon information and belief, the “Mystic Motel” and “Journey to Polar Point” marks were not used at all or in interstate commerce with those projects during certain years. Upon information and belief, the “MYSTIC MOTEL” mark does not appear to be in use at this time. Upon information and belief, Mr. D’Avanzo and his family are not currently living in the Ladera Ranch house and they appear to have no ability to offer the “dark house” attraction under the “MYSTIC MOTEL” mark for Halloween this year.

In fact, the filing goes so far as to claim that D’Avanzo’s trademark application itself may have been built on lies, where he claims to be using the “Mystic Motel” mark in interstate commerce, but never did. On top of that, D’Avanzo created a separate company, Adrenaline Attractions, to which he assigned the trademark. Adrenaline Attractions doesn’t provide amusement attractions, but instead consults with parks to design rides, which isn’t the market designation for which D’Avanzo has his trademark. Also, Adrenaline Attractions appears to have exactly one customer. Again, this is not a story about confusion in commerce, but about a money-grab.

This, somehow, rates with D’Avanzo as bullying.

“That’s what they are is a big bully,” D’Avanzo said of Silver Dollar City.  “I’m not a stranger to the court,” D’Avanzo said. “And if I have to fight, I will.”

Any reasonable assessment of the situation would result in Silver Dollar City’s request for declaratory judgement to be granted. I’d only like to add that it takes chops to bully a company over a trademark, have that company ask the court to defend it from the bullying, and then call the company the trademark bully.

Maybe D’Avanzo can add an IP wing to his haunted house, except he doesn’t appear to actually have one any longer.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

Monster Energy Opposes Teenager’s Trademark Application Over Logos Not At All Similar

/in

Monster Energy. The company’s name is enough to set the average Techdirt reader’s eyes rolling. The company that makes sugar-heavy energy drinks has become essentially a caricature of an overly aggressive trademark enforcer. This habit is somewhat surprising, given just how often the company loses lawsuits and oppositions, which one would think would be a deterrent for future behavior. Instead, it almost seems as though every loss only spurs Monster Energy on.

This continues on to today, when we learn that Monster Energy filed an opposition to a 21-year-old’s trademark application for his business, Monarch Energy. You’re probably thinking that the opposition is over the name of the young man’s company, which would itself be a stretch as trademark infringement. But, no, it’s over the kid’s proposed logo.

At age 16, Mason McGuire discovered arthritis in his lower back. The mountain biker, baseball player and motorcycle rider wanted to stay active without aggravating his newfound aches. One year older, the Forest Charter School graduate decided to start his own business to mitigate his problems, and hopefully ease those of others.

While taking a business course at Sierra College, the words of one individual continued to ring in his head: “My teacher kept saying, ‘You’ll never learn it until you do it,’” he said.

So he did.

But on July 30, McGuire received a letter that stunted his company’s development. Monster Energy filed a notice of opposition against his company, Monarch Energy, for violating trademark rules. Specifically, it said McGuire’s logo was too similar to Monster’s.

Are the logos similar? No, they damn well are not.

Trademark imageImage result for monster energy logo

Other than the fact that both logos incorporate the letter “M” and both companies list their names below that “M”, there is little to nothing similar about these two logos. The names of the companies, both prominently displayed, are different. The fonts are different. The styling around the letter “M” is different. The rest of the trade dress is different. Are people going to be confused by these two company logos? No, they absolutely are not.

And, yet, this 21 year old has had to deal with this opposition before even getting his company truly off the ground.

Despite maintaining distinctions, McGuire said he was a bit nervous Monster Energy would file a claim against his company, because of Monster’s history of filing lawsuits, so he tried doing his due diligence before choosing the logo.

“I made sure to go over the rules many times that wouldn’t infringe with Monster,” he said. But, he later said he suspected the large energy company might intervene legally anyway.

McGuire acknowledges that there is no trademark police per se, meaning that Monster Energy must be aware of smaller businesses trying to exploit its brand. But, he added, the company can drop the court filing once it realizes an entrepreneur is not acting in bad faith.

“I don’t care too much that they’re going after me,” he said. But McGuire — who has yet to hire an attorney — said he could lose his business with the possible legal fees needed to combat Monster Energy. He also said he can’t afford a new trademark to change his logo, for which he’s already paid.

Monster Energy doesn’t have to care about the harm it’s doing, of course, but it certainly should. Especially when this is yet another example of an opposition that never needed to be filed. But because Monster Energy wants to play the bully, a young man that started a business might lose it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

THE Ohio State University Loses Its Trademark Application For ‘THE’

/in

Over the past several weeks, we have been discussing a ridiculous trademark application filed by the Ohio State University for the word “the.” This entire episode has been a painful reminder of the fallout of the permission culture that has risen up out of strict IP enforcement and an overly-permissive USPTO. The idea that so common a word could be locked up by a public university for any market designation is, ahem, patently absurd. So absurd, in fact, that even OSU alumnus and college football commentator Kirk Herbstreit thought the whole thing was silly.

Still, given the Trademark Office’s history of approving far too many absurd trademarks, there were still some holding their breaths awaiting its decision on the application. For now, at least, the USPTO has rejected OSU’s application, though not quite as forcefully as it should have.

The USPTO’s document lists says it was refused because “the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of applicant’s clothing and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from others.”

Basically this ruling says is that the word wanting to be trademarked cannot just be on the apparel, but has to be part of the marketing and must be on the tag or label as well. Ohio State is not using the trademark properly according to the USPTO, and could reapply if they do begin to label their clothing in a way that goes along with the trademark guidelines.

The decision itself leaves the door open for OSU when it probably shouldn’t. Essentially, the USPTO is noting the common word in question only in passing, instead focusing on how OSU is trying to use that word on apparel. Basically, the Trademark Office is saying that the manner in which OSU’s application says it’s going to use the word “the” isn’t distinctive or source-identifying, but says perhaps OSU could prove it actually is in the future.

In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:

(1)        Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use) and that shows proper trademark use for the identified goods in International Class 25.  Examples of acceptable specimens that show non-ornamental use on clothing include hang tags and labels used inside a garment.

(2)        Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators.

(3)        Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.

(4)        Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.    

(5)        Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b).  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.

It’s unclear how much of this is pure boilerplate as opposed to specific guidance by the USPTO for this specific application. I would hope it’s the former, because I can’t begin to imagine how OSU is going to overcome the refusal on any of those counts, given that we’re talking about the god damned word “the.” The only reason for any of this nonsense is that alumni football players have tended to go on NFL broadcasts and introduce themselves with an emphasis on the word “the.” That’s literally it. How such practice could make the word “the” source identifying is pure mystery.

Given the derision and blowback, one would hope the Ohio State University would now just go away and stop all of this.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.