Archive for category Trademark News

Can I Trademark My Own Name? The Sarah Palin Incident

Posted by admin in Trademark News on February 14, 2011

Yes, it’s true. A person can trademark his own name. It has been reported by newsfeed.time.com and many other sources that Governor Sarah Palin applied for the trademark “Sarah Palin” and her application was rejected. There is a very simple explanation for this.

When a person’s name is the trademark, a written consent needs to be included in the application. Sarah Palin did not include this written consent.

So, while the news is hyped up about her not getting her trademark accepted, this is a mere technicality that occurs to over 80% of all trademark applications filed. It can be corrected and then, will continue on it’s way through the regular examination process.

If a person wants to use his or her name for a trademark, he has to have it used in commerce. One cannot simply trademark his name for the heck of it. There must be a bona fide intent to use the name in commerce, in connection with goods or services. Of course, if the name is already in use, that is fine, too.

Many superstars have trademarked their names: Tina Turner (for clothing, music, posters, entertainment services),  ‘Madonna’ (for clothing), and David Letterman (for entertainment services, t-shirts, mugs) to name just a few. And more and more famous name are being protected with a trademark every day.  It’s smart business.

No Comments

When to take a Cease and Desist letter seriously

Posted by admin in Trademark News on February 3, 2011

Various sources report that Your Baby Can, LLC has been aggressively enforcing their trademark rights via law firm Johnson & Pham, LLP of California. The term “aggressively enforcing their trademark rights” is actually not the correct  description of what they are doing.

Baby Can’s law firm has been scanning the Ebay list of sellers who are legitimately re-selling their used BABY CAN READ products, and sending them demand letters not only demanding that the seller cease and desist offering the item for sale, but also, they have the gall to demand a signed affidavit and a healthy check! People have attested to amounts ranging from $700 all the way to $10,00.  These people are private, individuals, and overall lawful citizens who are scared by such legal tactics.

If you or anyone you know has received such a letter, we urge you to 1) not send any money; 2) report the law firm to the California Bar Association, the Attorney General’s Office of California, and the Better Business Bureau.  This advice applies to any similar situation. Not all law firms are legitimate. This is harassment clear and simple. No law firm can demand money from you for simply re-selling a used item.

The essence of the demand letter includes a claim that the BABY CAN READ items being offered for resale are counterfeit. If that is the case, the law firm needs to go after the real culprit – the original seller, and the manufacturer of the counterfeit items. Not normal ebay users who hold ordinary jobs, and do not profit from a single solitary re-sold used item.

It is always disturbing to us at the National Trademark Center to hear of such behavior among lawyers,
especially in the field of Intellectual Property.

It seems that these lawyers have convinced their client, Your Baby Can LLC, that going after every reseller, no matter how insignificant, is a way to make a fast buck. Don’t be intimidated!

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Marlboro – response from Philip Morris Company re use of their trademark in films

Posted by admin in Trademark News on January 5, 2011

A few weeks ago, we posted an article about the use of trademarks in films. One filmmaker actually contacted the Philip Morris company, seeking permission to use the MARLBORO trademark in his film. It was on a large sign inside a convenience store, where a scene was occurring.

Philip Morris wrote him that the use of their trademark is protected under the doctrine of “fair use.” They also went on to explain a class action lawsuit that was settled in 1998 regarding use of their trademark in media. Take a look at the article here at the Nolo Blog.

, , , , ,

No Comments