商標登録insideNews: Federal Circuit Reverses TTAB Ruling on Standing for Petition to Cancel Condom Trademark

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday that Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. has “a real interest” in cancelling the registration for NAKED for condoms, owned by Naked TM, LLC.

情報源: Federal Circuit Reverses TTAB Ruling on Standing for Petition to Cancel Condom Trademark

15 U.S. Code § 1064.Cancellation of registration
A petition to cancel a registration of a mark, stating the grounds relied upon, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be filed as follows by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged, including as a result of a likelihood of dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 1125(c) of this title, by the registration of a mark on the principal register established by this chapter, or under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905:
(1)Within five years from the date of the registration of the mark under this chapter.
(2)Within five years from the date of publication under section 1062(c) of this title of a mark registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905.
(3)At any time if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered, or is functional, or has been abandoned, or its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section 1054 of this title or of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 1052 of this title for a registration under this chapter, or contrary to similar prohibitory provisions of such prior Acts for a registration under such Acts, or if the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the registrant so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used. If the registered mark becomes the generic name for less than all of the goods or services for which it is registered, a petition to cancel the registration for only those goods or services may be filed. A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the generic name of goods or services solely because such mark is also used as a name of or to identify a unique product or service. The primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public rather than purchaser motivation shall be the test for determining whether the registered mark has become the generic name of goods or services on or in connection with which it has been used.
(4)At any time if the mark is registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, and has not been published under the provisions of subsection (c) of section 1062 of this title.
(5)At any time in the case of a certification mark on the ground that the registrant (A) does not control, or is not able legitimately to exercise control over, the use of such mark, or (B) engages in the production or marketing of any goods or services to which the certification mark is applied, or (C) permits the use of the certification mark for purposes other than to certify, or (D) discriminately refuses to certify or to continue to certify the goods or services of any person who maintains the standards or conditions which such mark certifies:
Provided, That the Federal Trade Commission may apply to cancel on the grounds specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of this section any mark registered on the principal register established by this chapter, and the prescribed fee shall not be required. Nothing in paragraph (5) shall be deemed to prohibit the registrant from using its certification mark in advertising or promoting recognition of the certification program or of the goods or services meeting the certification standards of the registrant. Such uses of the certification mark shall not be grounds for cancellation under paragraph (5), so long as the registrant does not itself produce, manufacture, or sell any of the certified goods or services to which its identical certification mark is applied.

商標登録insideNews: USMCAが発効、国内法整備も完了(カナダ、米国、メキシコ) | ジェトロ

USMCA 発効

米国・メキシコ・カナダ協定(USMCA)が2020年7月1日に発効した。メキシコ政府は6月29日付官報において、USMCAを北米自由貿易協定(NAFTA)に代えて発効させ、新たに新設されたのは、連邦産業財産権保護法、品質インフラ法(基準認証に関する新法)であり、改定されたのは連邦刑法と連邦著作権法である。知財関連が多く、USMCAの知的財産の章の先進的内容を反映するためのもの。

情報源: USMCAが発効、国内法整備も完了(カナダ、米国、メキシコ) | ビジネス短信 – ジェトロUSMCA 発効

情報源: UNITED STATES–MEXICO–CANADA (USMCA)TRADE FACT SHEET Modernizing NAFTA into a 21st Century Trade Agreement | United States Trade Representative

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The United States, Mexico, and Canada have reached an agreement on a modernized, high-standard Intellectual Property (IP) chapter that provides strong and effective protection and enforcement of IP rights critical to driving innovation, creating economic growth, and supporting American jobs.

続きを読む“商標登録insideNews: USMCAが発効、国内法整備も完了(カナダ、米国、メキシコ) | ジェトロ”

商標登録insideNews: レッドスキンズがチーム名とロゴ変更へ 人種差別抗議広がりで NFLの名門 | 毎日新聞

NFLレッドスキンズがチーム名とロゴ変更

NFLレッドスキンズがチーム名とロゴ変更

 米プロフットボールNFLのワシントン・レッドスキンズは3日、北米の先住民を意味するチーム名の見直しに向けた検証を始めると発表した。チームは先住民団体からの名称変更の要請を長年拒否してきたが、人種差別に対する抗議行動が広がり、企業やメディアからの圧力が高まる中、方針転換した。1933年から続くチーム

情報源: レッドスキンズがチーム名とロゴ変更へ 人種差別抗議広がりで NFLの名門 – 毎日新聞

続きを読む“商標登録insideNews: レッドスキンズがチーム名とロゴ変更へ 人種差別抗議広がりで NFLの名門 | 毎日新聞”

商標登録insideNews: Booking.com wins key trademark case at the Supreme Court – CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court sided with Booking.com on Tuesday, green-lighting the booking accommodations website to trademark the generic term associated with their domain name.

情報源: Booking.com wins key trademark case at the Supreme Court – CNNPolitics

On 30th June 2020 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in United StatesPpatent and Trademark Office et al. v. Booking.comdealt with the issue of whether the combination of generic terms is also generic for the purpose of trademark registration. SCOTUS by an overwhelming majority (8 judges) held otherwise i.e. such combination is not generic in nature. The sole dissenting opinion was written by J Breyer who held respondent’s Trademark as generic in nature.

情報源: US Supreme Court On ‘generic.com’ Trademark: A Tale Of Missed Opportunities

商標登録insideNews: Trademark Audits: What Registrants Should Expect – Lexology

In 2017, the USPTO initiated an aggressive auditing program of U.S. trademark registrations at the time of maintenance filings. The goal of the program is to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the U.S. register by removing or narrowing registrations that include claims beyond the scope of the registrant’s actual use of its mark in U.S. commerce. The Office is on pace to audit 5000 registrations in 2020 so registrants who have not been tagged as yet should be prepared for an audit in the future.

情報源: Trademark Audits: What Registrants Should Expect – Lexology

商標登録insideNews: Cadillac Perfume And Cologne Hinted By New Trademark Filing | GM Authority

A new trademark filing suggests that a Cadillac perfume and cologne line might be on the horizon.General Motors has filed to trademark “Cadillac” in association with two goods and services categories:Room fragrances; perfumes and colognes; non-medicated soaps for personal useCandles

情報源: Cadillac Perfume And Cologne Hinted By New Trademark Filing | GM Authority

Cadillac | Finish Line | Make Your Way、0:30
https://youtu.be/HtmO1R7FcVM

米国連邦商標法における団体商標と証明標章

米国連邦商標法における団体商標と証明標章 米国連邦商標法では、通常の商標の他に、団体商標(Collective Trademark)と証明標章(Certification mark)があります。日本の商標制度にも団体商標 …

商標登録insideNews: USPTO grants further relief for certain trademark-related fees and deadlines | USPTO

[商標手続の救済]

Under the CARES Act authority and its existing authority in Trademark and TTAB matters, the USPTO will direct relief to those who need it on a case-by-case basis, as described in the official notice.

情報源: USPTO grants further relief for certain trademark-related fees and deadlines | USPTO

[特許手続の救済]

As stakeholders continue to navigate the effects of the pandemic in various ways, and as more and more of them are resuming operations, the USPTO will again extend certain deadlines.

情報源: USPTO grants further relief for certain patent-related fees and deadlines | USPTO

商標登録insideNews: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office bolsters protection of common food names | Farm Forum | aberdeennews.com

ARLINGTON, Va. – The Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN), U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC), National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), North American Meat Institute (NAMI), National Association of State Departments

情報源: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office bolsters protection of common food names | Farm Forum | aberdeennews.com

Examination Guide 2-20
Marks Including Geographic Wording that Does Not Indicate Geographic Origin of Cheeses and Processed Meats

Examination Guide 2-20, May 2020
Marks Including Geographic Wording that Does Not Indicate Geographic Origin of Cheeses and Processed Meats
May 2020
(USPTO-T-8)

This examination guide sets out the procedures for examining applications for cheeses and processed meats in which the mark includes geographic wording (hereinafter “geosignificant wording”) that does not indicate geographic origin, but otherwise may be a generic designation for such goods. See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 1210.02(b)(iii). The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. This guidance supersedes any previous United States Patent and Trademark Office guidance on this topic to the extent there are any conflicts.

I. BACKGROUND
Two federal agencies maintain lists of particular cheeses or processed meats for which the producers of such goods must satisfy certain requirements or standards in order to label or market them with the listed common name of the product. Thus, these names cannot be single-source indicators, and inclusion on such lists is strong evidence that the otherwise geo-significant wording is generic for the goods. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply, establishes mandatory requirements, known as “standards of identity,” for marketing cheese products under specific common names. These standards of identity relate solely to the production methods and ingredients necessary to label a product with the common name given to that standard. For example, part 133 of title 21, chapter 1, subchapter B (Food for Human Consumption) includes standards of identity for the following types of cheeses: CHEDDAR, EDAM, ROMANO, and PROVOLONE. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), also responsible for ensuring food safety, establishes standards of identity for labeling of processed meat products under specific common names. For example, USDA regulations part 319 include standards of identity for the following types of processed meat: FRANKFURTER, WIENER, BOLOGNA, and BRAUNSCHWEIGER. In addition to these two federal agencies, an international body, Codex Alimentarius (hereinafter “Codex”), operates within the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization to establish international food standards for, among other things, cheese. Codex standards of identity for cheese include: BRIE, CAMEMBERT, EDAM, GOUDA, and HAVARTI. Because standards of identity relate solely to production methods and ingredients, there is no requirement that the product come from a specific place, even though many of these terms identify a cheese or processed meat that once came only from the place referred to in
the name (e.g., CHEDDAR originated in Cheddar, England; BRIE originated in Brie, France; and BOLOGNA originated in Bologna, Italy). Therefore, such geo-significant terms differ from certification and collective marks of regional origin, which are registrable under Trademark Act § 4, 15. U.S.C. § 1054. Certification and collective marks of regional origin refer to the place the products come from and the quality standards they meet. Standards
of identity are food-labeling requirements intended to prevent consumers from being misled as to what product they are buying.

II. PROCEDURE FOR EXAMINING APPLICATIONS FOR CHEESES AND PROCESSED MEATS
In addition to searching for evidence using traditional sources, when a mark includes geosignificant wording relating to a particular cheese or processed meat, the examining attorney must also conduct research to determine if the wording is a standard of identity for the goods specified in the application, using sources of evidence that are appropriate for the particular goods specified in the application (e.g., the FDA, USDA, and Codex databases). The examining attorney may submit a request to the Trademark Law Library to undertake such research or may personally conduct the research. In either case, the examining attorney must add a Note to the File indicating “standards of identity search” or “Law Library standards of identity search.” Evidence that the particular term is a standard of identity must be included with the Office action. If available, the examining attorney should include additional evidence that shows how the proposed mark would be perceived in the marketplace. Note that if the name of a product appears only on the Codex list, further evidence, such as a dictionary definition or internet evidence of the product’s availability to U.S. consumers, must be included. When warranted by the evidence, the examining attorney must refuse registration or require a disclaimer under § 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), in accordance with current practice as outlined in the TMEP. TMEP §§ 1209.02, 1209.02(a), 1213.03(a). Because inclusion on the FDA or USDA list is strong evidence that the term is generic for the particular cheese or processed meat, when the marks include or consist of such terms, the examining attorney should also advise the applicant that the relevant wording appears to be the generic term for the goods, in accordance with current practice as outlined in TMEP § 1209.02(a) (“If there is strong evidence that the proposed mark is generic, a statement that the subject matter appears to be a generic name for the goods or services should be included in conjunction with the refusal on the ground that the matter is merely descriptive.”). When there is evidence that the accuracy of a product’s compliance with standards of identity is material to purchasing decisions—in other words, the consumer bought the product thinking it was the particular cheese or processed meat named in the mark—a mark including or consisting of such terms used on non-compliant cheeses or processed meats would be deceptive under § 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Therefore, the examining attorney must require that the applicant amend the identification of goods to include the term. See TMEP §§ 1203.02(a), (d), (e)(i)-(ii), (f)(i). If the name of a standard of identity comprises, in whole or in part, a mark for services that relate to cheese or processed meat, the assigned examining attorney must consult the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy before taking any action on the application.