Upload
dinhnhi
View
217
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Intent to Use Trademark Applications:
Pros and Cons, Demonstrating ITU,
Converting to Actual Use
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2017
James L. Bikoff, Partner, Smith Gambrell & Russell, Washington, D.C.
Victoria Burke, Esq., Scott+Scott, San Diego
Hillary Kane, Interim Director of Public Affairs, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles
Darlene S. Klinksieck, Trademark Portfolio Manager, Smith Gambrell & Russell, Washington, D.C.
Tips for Optimal Quality
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality
of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial
1-866-570-7602 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please
send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can
address the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Continuing Education Credits
In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your
participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance
Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.
A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email
that you will receive immediately following the program.
For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926
ext. 35.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Program Materials
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
V I C T O R I A B U R K E , E S Q
A T T O R N E Y , S C O T T + S C O T T , A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W , L L P
INTENT TO USE TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b)(1)
• “A person who has a bona fide intention, under
circumstances showing the good faith of such
person, to use a trademark in commerce may
request registration of its trademark on the principal
register hereby established by paying the
prescribed fee and filing in the Patent and
Trademark Office an application and a verified
statement…”
• To convert an ITU application to actual use,
applicant later must file a statement of use (SOU) to
attain formal TM registration. 6
WHY DO WE HAVE ITU APPLICATIONS?
• 1988 Congress amended the Lanham Act by passing the Trademark Law Revision Act (TLRA)
• Up until 1988, an applicant had to prove actual use of an applied-for mark
• Leveled the playing field between U.S. and international applicants
• In many foreign countries, an applicant is not required to prove actual use before attaining a TM registration
7
INTERNATIONAL APPLICANTS
• Under section 44e (Paris Convention), international
applicants could establish priority in US based on
their existing foreign registration (which could be
obtained without showing use)
• After the change in law in 1988, applicants relying
on an international registration filing under section
44e and section 66a (Madrid Protocol) must submit
verification of a bona fide intention to use the mark
in commerce when registering that mark with the
USPTO
8
PURPOSE IS NOT TO RESERVE A MARK
• An applicant must have a bona fide intention to
use a mark at the time of filing an application.
• But what exactly does bona fide mean?
• Unclear what “circumstances” may demonstrate
“good faith”
• Congress in drafting the Trademark Law Revision
Act omitted a statutory definition of the term bona
fide
9
OBJECTIVE
• Legislative History:
• “’Bona fide’ should be read to mean a fair, objective determination of the applicant’s intent based on all the
circumstances.” –S. Rep. No. 100-515, at 23 (1988)
• J. Thomas McCarthy:
• “the evidence is ‘objective’ in the sense that it is evidence
in the form of real life facts and by the actions of the
applicant.” -3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition § 19:14 (4th ed. 2015)
10
TIMING IS PARAMOUNT
• Bona fide intention to use must exist at the time of filing • –Swatch AG v. M.Z. Berger & Co., 108 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1463, 1476 (T.T.A.B. 2013)(precedential)
• As long as the applicant’s bona fide intention to use is OBJECTIVELY PRESENT at the filing, the documentary evidence for this intent does not necessarily have to be contemporaneous with the actual filing date. • -Lane Ltd. V. Jackson Int’l Trading Co., 33 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1351, 1357 (T.T.A.B. 1994)
• Ex: Intention exists at time of filing, but it may be conditionally based on the outcome of a future event related to business development. • -S. Rep. No. 100-515, at 24 (1988).
11
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
• During an opposition to registration, if the TTAB finds an applicant lacked the requisite bona fide intention to use AT THE TIME OF FILING, the application becomes void ab initio. • –Spirits Int’l, B.V. V. S.S. Taris Zeytin Ve Zeytinyagi Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri Birligi, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1545, 1546 n.3 (T.T.A.B.
2011).
• If void ab initio, then claims such as priority or likelihood of confusion will not be entertained. • -SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1305 (T.T.A.B. 2010) (precedential).
• Hence the importance of an attorney to counsel a client to proactively establish objective evidence at time of filing.
• Having an attorney sign off is not sufficient to demonstrate intent. • -Trs. Of the Bonnie Cashin Found. V. Lake, No. 91213081, slip. Op. at 3, 9 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2016) (nonprecedential)
12
POORLY BUILT APPLICATIONS: TTAB EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT
• Relies on subjective evidence
• Absence of any documentary evidence • Thus applicant’s documentary evidence should be
presentable in a definitive format at time of filing. • -Honda Motor Co. v. Winklemann, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1660, 1664 (T.T.A.B. 2009).
• Must be more than merely steps made to file a TM application • -SWATCH AG V. M.Z. Berger & Co., 108 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1463, 1472 (T.T.A.B. 2013).
• Intended use must be for more than to reserve a right in a mark • -Commodore Elecs. Ltd. V. CBM Kabushiki Kaisha, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1503, 1506 n.7 (T.T.A.B. 1993).
• Must be more than “idealist hopes for forming a…company.” • -Lincoln Nat’l Corp. v. Anderson, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA (1271, 1277-78 (T.T.A.B. 2014) (precedential).
• Owning a patent—on its own—is not sufficient (though it could go toward the totality of the circumstances) • -SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1304 (T.T.A.B. 2010).
13
MUST HAVE’S
• Must convey enough objective evidence to convey a legitimate business plan. • -PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Young, No. 912-6846, 2013 WL 5820849, at *5-6 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2013)(nonprecedential)
• Business plan needs to be more than securing a mark with the purpose of using said mark to attract investors
• -Diageo N. Am., Inc. v. Captain Russel Corp., No. 92103745, 2013 WL 5407296, at *4-5 (T.T.A.B. June 12, 2013)(nonprecedential)
• Should be able to show plans to produce any goods identified in the application. • Ex: TTAB found a lack of a legitimate business plan where
“[a]pplicant has neither given thought to where its goods under the [subject] mark would be manufactured, nor identified or contracted with third parties who might manufacture such goods, nor identified materials needed therefor, nor prepared any schematics therefor, nor prepared instructional manuals.”
• -SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1301 (T.T.A.B. 2010).
14
ADDITIONAL APPLICATION PROBLEMS
• Applying for an excessive number of trademark
applications or filing in numerous unrelated classes
could be indicative of an applicant who:
• lacks a bona fide intention to use
and/or
• is acting in bad faith.
• -L’Oréal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1434, 1444-45 (T.T.A.B. 2012).
15
IFFY: SOMETIMES SUFFICIENT / SOMETIMES NOT ENOUGH
• Some business planning exists:
• Enough: • Single, pre-filing email regarding the general goal of expanding
the use of the trademark to other goods along with some initial
talks with potential licensees regarding brand expansion was
enough (Notably, post-filing documentation was used in
conjunction with pre-filing documentation to establish pre-filing
intent) • -Hard Candy Cases, LLC v. Hard Candy, LLC, No. 91195328, slip op. at 11-12 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2014)
(nonprecedential)
• Insufficient: • “Vague references to research and development of products”
in the annual meeting minutes • --SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1304 (T.T.A.B. 2010).
16
ABILITY TO CURE AN APPLICATION
• If Applicant is guilty of excessive filing…
• BUT…lacks bad faith
• And Applicant can produce evidence of a bona fide intention to use at least some goods claimed in a class
• Then applicant may amend or divide out the goods in the application in a divisional procedure • -Wet Seat, Inc. v. FD Management, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1629, 1630 (T.T.A.B. 2007).
• -Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Creative Harbor, LLC, 846 F.3d 857 (6th Cir. 2017).
• International: Applicant seeking to register a mark based on a foreign registration is also afforded this same opportunity to cure. • -Sandro Andyd S.A. v. Light Inc., No. 12 Civ. 2393, 2012 WL 6709268 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)
17
TIPS AS AN ATTORNEY
• Do not blindly sign off on an ITU application for a client
without ensuring some proper thresholds have been met. • -Trs. Of the Bonnie Cashin Found. V. Lake, No. 91213081, slip op. at 3 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2016).
• At the time of filing, an applicant should have a “definite” plan explaining the purpose of the mark and
“documented to the degree appropriate to the product
or service in question.” • -J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 19:14 (4th ed. 2015).
• Applicant should maintain a record of the names of the
people involved in developing and marketing the
products or services to be offered under the trademark.
• These people will later be able to support, by testimony in
opposition or cancellation proceedings, the presence of bona
fide intent to use the mark.
18
ROADMAP TO USE FOR CLIENTS:
• 1. Applicant’s name (name of applicant or
company)
• 2. Today’s date
• 3. Who prepared the form for the trademark
registration (applicant, counsel, other)?
• 4. Have any business plans been discussed for the
trademark (informal or formal)? If yes, provide:
• Date discussions held
• Company members involved in the discussions
• Location where these discussions were held
• Format of business plans (written or unwritten)
19
ROADMAP CONTINUED
• 5. Has any market research for the product or service to be offered for sale under the trademark been conducted? • Describe steps taken
• List the people in the company responsible for the marketing decisions regarding the products/services for which the TM/SM will be used
• 6. What steps were taken to ensure trademark availability? Was a trademark search undertaken? • Date conducted
• Conducted by whom
• Method of TM search (informal Internet search, common-law trademark search, or via a formal trademark search company)
20
ROADMAP CONTINUED
• 7. Have any efforts been made to create a graphic
representation of the trademark?
• Graphic designer’s name
• Date graphic artist was consulted
• 8. Have any labels been made for a product or
service bearing the mark? (attach samples)
• 9. Has the mark been used in test marketing?
• Date(s)
• Details of the marketing test
21
ROADMAP CONTINUED
• 10. Have any attempts been made to locate
potential licensees? If yes, were these attempts for
domestic or international (or both) licensees?
Provide:
• Dates of attempts to secure licensees
• Names of potential licensees approached
• Method for contacting potential licensees (phone, e-mail,
in-person meets, etc)
• 11. Were any steps taken to secure permits
necessary for conducting business with the
trademark (regulatory)?
22
ROADMAP CONTINUED
• 12. Do you have any correspondence referring to efforts to launch products or services bearing the trademark?
• 13. Were any measures taken to secure an online presence (domain name registration, website construction)? • Date(s) of efforts
• Details of the registration/construction process
• 14. Have any steps been taken to procure physical space for the trademark products/services and business? • Address or location
• Date location was secured (or date prospective dates mtgs held)
• Under whose name was the space lease or titled
23
ROADMAP CONTINUED
• 15. Have any steps been taken to prepare for the
manufacturing of the product?
• Name of company and names of people contacted
• 16. What planning has been done:
• Budget
• Materials purchased
24
THANK YOU
James L. Bikoff
Victoria Burke
Hillary Kane
Darlene S. Klinksieck
25