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

 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

The Washington Redskins have been asked by FedEx, a top sponsor, to rebrand, while Nike, the NFL’s apparel provider, has removed club merchandise from its online store.

情報源: FedEx asks Washington Redskins to change its name while Nike removes all gear from its website | Daily Mail Online

A source tells Stephen A. the Redskins will change the name of their team | First Take, 6:58

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

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

米国における団体商標と証明標章

米国連邦商標法

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と地域団体商標の各制度がありますが、証明標章という制度自体はなく通常の商標登録とライセンシングを利用しています。証明標章はいくつかの国(ポーランド、スウェーデンなど)ではGuarantee Markとも呼ばれることがありますが、米国ではCertification markになります。

米国における団体商標(Collective Trademark)と証明標章(Certification mark)ってなに?

米国の商標制度では、団体商標は次の3つのカテゴリーに分類できます。それらはcollective trademark(団体(商品)商標)、collective service mark(団体役務商標)、collective membership mark (団体会員標章)になります。このうちcollective trademarkとcollective service markはまとめてcollective markと呼ばれることもあります。団体商標は団体組織の構成員が指定商品や指定役務を非構成員の商品や役務と区別するために使用される標章です。一方証明標章は、或る商品や役務の特徴や品質を証明するために使用される標章です。証明標章の目的は、購買者に特定の者の商品や役務が或る性質を有し、若しくは所定の品質や標準を備えていることを知らせます。これらの団体商標や証明標章は、複数人によって使用されますが、その複数の使用者は団体内の組織によって関連した者に限定されます。団体商標は、構成員(会員)の全員が使用することができ、団体組織が構成員の利益のために団体商標権を保持します。証明標章の所有者は、証明する者の標準を満たす者にその標章の使用を許可します。証明商標は許可された者により使用されますが、その許可された者同士は関連性はない場合が多いです。団体会員標章は、その標章の使用者が特定の組織の構成員であることを示す標章で、この団体会員標章は一般的な意味での商品商標でもなく役務商標でもありません。

証明標章は主に次の3つのタイプのものがあるとされています。1.Geographic origin (地理的な出所) 2.Standards met with respect to quality, materials, or mode of manufacture (品質、素材、製造モードについての標準に適合) 3.Work/labor performed by member or that worker meets certain standards (会員若しくはある基準を満たす作業者によりなされる作業若しくは労働) 証明標章は、団体商標と比べて2つの大きな違いがあります。1つは証明標章は、その所有者ではなく、許可された使用者によって使用されます。もう1つは、証明標章は、商業的な出所を示したり、ある人物の商品や役務を他人のものから区別したりするのではなく、許可された使用者の商品/役務の特定の側面について認定されたものであることを示します。

団体商標(Collective Trademark)の例

米国商標登録第87762051号
米国商標登録第79128963号
米国商標登録第680603号

団体会員標章(Collective Membership Mark)の例

米国商標登録第77520761号
米国商標登録第77451590号
米国商標登録第85763654号

証明標章(Certification Mark)の例

米国商標登録第5778297号
米国商標登録第5034539号
米国商標登録第5100929号

出願に際して必要な書類は?

団体商標に対する書類

団体商標についての出願に含むべき情報は、通常の商標登録出願とほぼ同じとなりますが、出願の基礎として申し立てる情報が少し異なることになります。その1つは、団体メンバーによる商標の使用についての出願人の管理(Applicant’s control)の特質についての申立(statement)です。この申立には”Applicant controls the members’ use of the mark in the following manner: [specify, e.g., the applicant’s bylaws specify the manner of control]”という文言を用いることが慣用され、職権補正により加えることも可能です。もう1つは下記に示す宣誓書(DECLARATION)です。この宣誓書は、商標が商取引で使用され、出願人が商取引における標章の使用を正当に管理している。署名者の知る限りでは、商品上または商品に関連して使用された場合に、団体メンバー以外の人物は、同一の形式または類似している形で、商取引で商標を使用する権利を持たないことなどの事項を内容とします。また、商標使用の日付も団体メンバーの使用であったり、使用見本についても団体メンバーの使用を証するものである必要があります。

団体会員標章に対する書類

団体会員標章は、ビジネスや貿易で使用されておらず商品やサービスの出所を示すものではないので、団体会員標章は通常の意味での商標またはサービスマークではありません。団体会員標章についての出願に含むべき情報は、団体商標と同様に通常の商標登録出願とほぼ同じとなりますが、会員の種類、目的、活動分野などの会員組織の性質の説明(例えば、 “indicating membership in an organization of computer professionals” or “indicating membership in a motorcycle club”)が必要とされ、出願人の管理(Applicant’s control)の特質についての申立(statement)と、団体会員標章についての宣誓書(DECLARATION)も必要です。使用見本としては、名義欄を空けたり無効の印を付与した会員証や証明書などを最も一般的に使用でき、逆に一般的な会員募集の広告などでは使用見本とならない場合もあります。

証明標章に対する書類

証明標章を登録するためには、次の申立が必要です。1.出願人が商品や役務の何を証明しているか申立(Certification statement) 2.出願人が原則的に商品や役務の製造などに従事していない旨(statement) 3.下記に示すような宣誓書(DECLARATION:DECLARATION FORM for collective mark)です。この宣誓書では、出願人は商標の所有者であること、 商標が商取引で使用されていること、出願人が商取引における標章の使用を正当に管理していること、署名者の知る限りでは、許可された使用者以外の人物は、同一の形式で、またはそれに関連して使用される可能性が高いと思われる類似の形で、商取引で当該標章を使用する権利を持たないことを宣誓することになっています。何を証明しているかの説明であるCertification statementは公報記載になり、公表されます。

地理的証明標章(geographic certification mark)

地理的証明標章は、チーズを表すROQUEFORT、お茶を表すDARJEELING、コーヒーを表すCOLOMBIANの標章のように、関連する地理的領域の名称が商品や役務の出所を証する場合の標章です。この地理的証明標章では、地理的な名称がその出所を証するように機能する際には、単に地理的な記述であるとして拒絶することはできないとされています。しかし地理的な記述以外の部分では、権利不要求を求められることがあり、例えば、ウイスコンシンチーズのチーズはチーズの部分は一般名称として権利不要求が正当なものとなり得ます。出願人は、地理的証明標章を管理する権限を正当に有している(EXERCISE LEGITIMATE CONTROL)必要があり、通常地理的名称についての権限(AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE GEOGRAPHIC TERM)から地方自治体またはこれに類する者が出願人となります。

地理的証明標章(Geographic Certification Mark)の例

米国商標登録第2914307号
米国商標登録第1632726号
米国商標登録第571798号

出願後の補正は可能ですか?

証明標章として出願した後に、実は通常の商標であった場合や、その逆であった場合には、出願を補正して的確な形式の出願に直すことが可能です。証明標章や団体商標、団体会員標章はTEASplusでは出願できないため、もしTEASplusで出願した商標をこれらの商標・標章に補正する場合には、追加の手数料が必要となります。

団体商標、証明標章の審査はどのように行われますか?

基本的には、団体商標、証明標章であっても通常の商標の審査と同様な審査が行われますが、例えば宣誓書などの有無や使用者は誰かなどの団体商標、証明標章の登録要件についての審査も行われます。出願の基礎が44E(外国商標登録)であり、外国の登録証明書に商標を団体商標として指定する見出しがある場合、または外国の証明書の本文に登録が団体商標であることを示す言語が含まれている場合、これらの表示は外国の登録が団体商品商標、団体役務商標、または団体会員標章であることを示している可能性があります。

日本の団体商標や地域団体商標、地理的表示についても登録できますか?

答えはYESですが、良く考えて出願しないと何度も拒絶理由通知(Office Action)を受けたり、望む形式での登録ができなかったります。特に日本で登録された地域団体商標は、そのフォーマットが識別力のない地理的名称+普通名称であるため要注意です。

i)図形と組み合わせの地域団体商標

日本で登録された地域団体商標でも、図形と組み合わせの地域団体商標は、文字部分が地理的名称+普通名称であっても図形の部分からの顕著性がありますので、主登録が可能です。しかし、地理的名称と普通名称のそれぞれに権利不要求(disclaimer)を求められることがあり、そのとおりに権利不要求を付加した場合には、図形だけの商標と同じ効力になります。従いまして、地域団体商標であっても米国では地域証明標章(geographic certification mark)として権利化を図ることを考えるべきと思います。米国では団体商標は、自分の団体と他人の団体を区別するための商標ですから、単なる地理的名称は識別性がないものと判断されますが、補正などで地理的な証明標章のカテゴリーに持っていけば地理的名称の権利不要求の問題は解消されます。日本で団体商標だから”COLLECTIVE MARK”と単純に決めつけないことが良い結果をもたらすこともあります。

ii)文字だけの地域団体商標

日本で登録された地域団体商標が文字だけの場合には、さらにハードルが上がり、もし終始団体商標として登録しようとすると、識別性がない単なる地理的名称の拒絶理由を回避することができないことになりかねません。主登録を諦めて、必要な場合には使用の証拠を添付し、出願の基礎を1aに替えて補助登録だけで済ませることにもなりがちです。文字だけの地域団体商標は、ローマ字の地理的名称とローマ字の商品名の組み合わせも含まれます。特にマドリッド制度を利用した出願の場合には、最終的に補助登録にもっていくことができないため、日本の地域団体商標をそのまま団体商標で登録することは容易ではありません。1つの解決策としては、補正により団体商標ではなく地理的な証明標章のカテゴリーに持っていけば、地理的名称の権利不要求の問題は解消されることがあります。重ねてですが、日本で団体商標だからといって単純に”COLLECTIVE MARK”と決めつけないことが良い結果になる可能性があります。地理的な証明標章の場合には、EXERCISE LEGITIMATE CONTROLとAUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE GEOGRAPHIC TERMなどを証明するために、いくつかの宣誓書を提出する必要がありますが、この場合、地域団体商標を取得するための規約等を翻訳して対処することになります。

マドリッド制度を利用して登録可能ですか?

マドリッド制度を利用した国際出願でも米国での登録は可能です。この場合には、出願時に必要とされる宣誓書と、団体商標、証明標章に必要な宣誓書は異なっており、米国での審査の段階で審査官が出願人に必要な宣誓を求めるようになっています。出願したまま中間処理なしに登録になることはないと思われます。

DECLARATION FORM for collective mark

DECLARATION



The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this declaration on behalf of applicant; he/she believes that, as of the application filing date, the applicant has had a bona fide intention to exercise legitimate control over its members’ use of the collective mark in commerce that the United States Congress can regulate; he/she believes the applicant to be entitled to exercise legitimate control over its members’ use of the mark in commerce that the United States Congress can regulate; to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce that the United States Congress can regulate, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, firm, corporation, or association to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

________________________________________
(Signature)

________________________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)

________________________________________
(Date)

DECLARATION FORM for certification mark

DECLARATION



The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this declaration on behalf of applicant; he/she believes that, as of the application filing date, the applicant has had a bona fide intention to exercise legitimate control over the use of the certification mark in commerce that the United States Congress can regulate; he/she believes the applicant to be entitled to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce that the United States Congress can regulate; applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods or services to which the mark is applied; to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce that the United States Congress can regulate, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, firm, corporation, or association to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

________________________________________
(Signature)

________________________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)

________________________________________
(Date)

DECLARATION BY SIGNATORY
DECLARATION:
The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that, if the applicant submitted the application or allegation of use (AOU) unsigned, all statements in the application or AOU and this submission based on the signatory’s own knowledge are true, and all statements in the application or AOU and this submission made on information and belief are believed to be true.

STATEMENTS FOR UNSIGNED SECTION 1(a) APPLICATION/AOU: If the applicant filed an unsigned application under 15 U.S.C. §1051(a) or AOU under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), the signatory additionally believes that: the applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered; the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization in the application or AOU; the original specimen(s), if applicable, shows the mark in use in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization in the application or AOU; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, collective membership mark application, or certification mark application, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce and was exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU; for a certification mark application, the applicant is not engaged in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant. To the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, authorized users, members, and/or concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.

STATEMENTS FOR UNSIGNED SECTION 1(b)/SECTION 44 APPLICATION AND FOR SECTION 66(a) COLLECTIVE/CERTIFICATION MARK APPLICATION: If the applicant filed an unsigned application under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1126(d), and/or 1126(e), or filed a collective/certification mark application under 15 U.S.C. §1141f(a), the signatory additionally believes that: for a trademark or service mark application, the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services specified in the application; the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, collective membership mark, or certification mark application, the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; the signatory is properly authorized to execute the declaration on behalf of the applicant; for a certification mark application, the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant. To the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, authorized users, members, and/or concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.

/E-FORM SIGNING/

団体商標、団体会員標章のSection 8 Affidavits or Declarationsの提出には次の宣誓書の提出も必要となります。

DECLARATION FORM for Exercising Legitimate Control Statement

DECLARATION



Unless the owner specifically claimed excusable nonuse, the mark was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services or to indicate membership in the collective membership organization identified in the registration, as evidenced by the submitted specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce, during the relevant period for filing the 10-year Section 8.

The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of this submission, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

__________________________
(Signature of Authorized Person)

__________________________
(Type or Print Name)

__________________________
(Date)

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.

商標登録insideNews: Trademark Fraud Is In Congress’s Crosshairs In Proposed Legislation | Fox Rothschild LLP – JDSupra

If enacted, the aptly named Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 will better protect the relevant consuming public from confusion regarding the source of goods and services by implementing procedures that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office – and trademark owners and applicants – can use to combat fraudulent trademark filings more expeditiously and less expensively.

情報源: Trademark Fraud Is In Congress’s Crosshairs In Proposed Legislation | Fox Rothschild LLP – JDSupra

商標法近代化法案「Trademark Modernization Act of 2020」が上程される商標法近代化法案「Trademark Modernization Act of 2020」が上程される JETRO

Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 SECTION-BY-SECTIONTrademark Modernization Act of 2020 SECTION-BY-SECTION

法第4条の改正では、現行6か月の拒絶理由応答期間が定められていますが、審査官の裁量で60日から6か月の柔軟な期間に変更が予定されています。また、審査段階での第三者による情報提供手続、商標登録を取消すための査定系手続の導入(不使用による査定系取消手続(Ex parte expungement)と査定系再審査手続(Ex parte reexamination))、差止請求権の強化が図られています。

商標登録insideNews: Does a .com suffix make a trademark? The US Supreme Court will decide as Booking marks its legal spot | The Register

If you know anything about law it is probably that you can’t trademark a generic name. But this week the US Supreme Court heard a case that introduces a fascinating wrinkle in that long-standing rule, courtesy of the internet.

情報源: Does a .com suffix make a trademark? The US Supreme Court will decide as Booking marks its legal spot • The Register

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments for USPTO v. Booking via Teleconference | LIVE | NowThis, 2:17:39

For the first time in its 230 year history, the Supreme Court is broadcasting its oral arguments, which are happening via teleconference due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

商標登録insideNews: “Graduated” and “Undefined” Colors Available for Trademark Protection | National Law Review

There are a number of famous colors that are trademark-protected – such as the color brown, which is registered by UPS, and the color “robin egg blue”, which is registered by Tiffany

情報源: “Graduated” and “Undefined” Colors Available for Trademark Protection

Forney® – Power to get things done, 0:57

0:41 / 0:57あたりに、製品パッケージ(黒と黄色から赤色のグラデーション)の動画があります。

商標登録insideNews: Trademark Modernisation Act introduced in bid to combat fraudulent filings: reaction | World Trademark Review

A bipartisan, bicameral legislation that modernises the US trademark system has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Examining the act, one legal expert has warned that it has the potential to cost brand owners significant time and money.

情報源: Trademark Modernisation Act introduced in bid to combat fraudulent filings: reaction | World Trademark Review

establish expungement and ex parte proceedings relating to the validity of marks

情報源: H.R.6196 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for third-party submission of evidence relating to a trademark application, to establish expungement and ex parte proceedings relating to the validity of marks, to provide for a rebuttal presumption of irreparable harm in certain proceedings, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

商標登録insideNews: Trademark Attorney Checks in With Update on Phillie Phanatic Legal Case | Crossing Broad

The Phillie Phanatic revealed his offseason makeover yesterday afternoon in Clearwater and the consensus reaction to the updates was… not great. The changes were spurred, at least in part, by ongoing litigation between the Phillies and mascot creators Wade Harrison and Bonnie Erickson. In short, Harrison and Erickson want more money from the team. In…

情報源: Trademark Attorney Checks in With Update on Phillie Phanatic Legal Case | Crossing Broad

Could this be the end for the Phillie Phanatic?, 2:05