The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has its own Office of Enrollment and Discipline. See info here: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/finding-patent-practitioner
If it's generic, they're done. If it's a descriptive them, then they could still get a registration if they can show so-called secondary meaning (i.e. that the term has come to be seen as a Snap brand in the minds of the public).
Whether training the AI constitutes 'copying' remains to be seen. There have been cases holding that copying copyrighted content into a computer's RAM is enough to infringe copyright. It'll be interesting to see whether AI training utilizes "copying," for purposes of copyright law, and if so whether a Fair Use argument can prevail.
Yes. The lawyers could be sanctioned; if the plaintiff signed an affidavit she knew was false, it could be perjury. I haven't seen anything in either the 10th Circuit opinion or the SCOTUS opinion indicating that this had any effect on the outcome of the case, however, and the 10th Circuit was clear that it wasn't required for standing (and SCOTUS agreed).
I'm skeptical of Chipotle's case here.
One important point, though: words like 'cola' and 'soda' are generic. You can never get a trademark for a term that is generic for the goods or services provided.
Descriptive terms, on the other hand, can be trademarked. You can't get protection for descriptive terms immediately upon use but you can get a trademark if you've used the terms long enough that they've acquired so-called 'secondary meaning,' which means that the consuming public has come to associate the descriptive term specifically with the trademark owner.
Plus, to the extent a huge company like Disney is operating solely under something like OGL, which I doubt, I'm sure WotC would approach them prior to any change and enter into a side agreement of some kind.
And now, Paizo, who benefitted from WotC's last misstep with 4E/GSL, has announced that they're going to release a system-neutral open license for anyone to use.
Although, as some pointed out at the time of OGL, you don't need a license to use game rules and mechanics--they're not protected by copyright. In some ways, signing on to such a license can result in giving up more rights than you're otherwise entitled to under the law in exchange for some security (real or perceived) from threats of litigation.
Whether a proposed mark is descriptive or generic depends on the goods or services involved. You could register the mark TAQUERIA for golf clubs, for example. Just like you can have a trademark on the word APPLE for computer but not for actual apples.
I'm using the words in the legal sense, under trademark law. "Descriptive" and "Generic" are two separate categories. A Descriptive word or phrase can be protected as a trademark if is what so-called "secondary meaning." A Generic word or phrase cannot be protected at all.
There are rules relating to translations of foreign words. In the U.S., at least, even though it is a Spanish word it would likely be considered generic here. UK has a similar doctrine--iirc it depends on whether the relevant target consumers would understand the term in its generic/descriptive sense. In which case, you get to argue over the relevant consumers.
You can have a trademark in a descriptive term if it has secondary meaning. Seems almost impossible that the UK entity would meet that standard. And, moreoever, taqueria isn't descriptive--it's generic. No one should have a trademark on it.
This isn't censorship, but censorship doesn't require state action. We have a long history of private censorship in the U.S. Private censorship doesn't implicate the First Amendment like government censorship does, but saying it is no longer 'censorship' if a private entity does it is incorrect.
Been using Neeva since last fall. It's good. I still occasionally use Google when the search results from Neeva aren't quite what I was expecting but it doesn't happen all that often.
The answer to this may be simple--we have not seen the complaint. They may not have brought a cause of action to enforce the illegal agreement. It could just be a straightforward defamation action, or other allegations outside of that contract.
Glad to hear it. Used to work with Tom; he's a good guy. If you're ever in St. Louis on January 25, Robert Burns' birthday, go to the Schlafly Tap Room.
I mean, go any time, but particularly at that time.
I don't agree with the "inarguable" likelihood of confusion comments. The TTAB noted that licensed products including the 12th Man mark include a wide variety of offerings, such a coffee, signs, stoneware, phone cases, earrings, tattoo sheets, food trays, towels (which the TTAB finds particularly important) and so on. Given that list of licensed products, it isn't unreasonable for the TTAB to find that people would likely think the soap is also licensed--one of many licensed products.
Which isn't to say there is necessarily going to be such confusion. Only that that TTAB decision isn't as unreasonable as made out in the article.
Had they not found a likelihood of confusion, it would have been interesting to see what they found on the dilution claim.
Kagi
I've been using Kagi, which I've found to be very good. I previously tried Duck Duck Go and agree the results leave a lot to be desired.
USPTO OED
The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has its own Office of Enrollment and Discipline. See info here: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/finding-patent-practitioner
If it's generic, they're done. If it's a descriptive them, then they could still get a registration if they can show so-called secondary meaning (i.e. that the term has come to be seen as a Snap brand in the minds of the public).
Won't matter if the fan-made arrangement was an unauthorized derivative work to begin with.
We will see
Whether training the AI constitutes 'copying' remains to be seen. There have been cases holding that copying copyrighted content into a computer's RAM is enough to infringe copyright. It'll be interesting to see whether AI training utilizes "copying," for purposes of copyright law, and if so whether a Fair Use argument can prevail.
Yes. The lawyers could be sanctioned; if the plaintiff signed an affidavit she knew was false, it could be perjury. I haven't seen anything in either the 10th Circuit opinion or the SCOTUS opinion indicating that this had any effect on the outcome of the case, however, and the 10th Circuit was clear that it wasn't required for standing (and SCOTUS agreed).
I'm skeptical of Chipotle's case here. One important point, though: words like 'cola' and 'soda' are generic. You can never get a trademark for a term that is generic for the goods or services provided. Descriptive terms, on the other hand, can be trademarked. You can't get protection for descriptive terms immediately upon use but you can get a trademark if you've used the terms long enough that they've acquired so-called 'secondary meaning,' which means that the consuming public has come to associate the descriptive term specifically with the trademark owner.
Plus, to the extent a huge company like Disney is operating solely under something like OGL, which I doubt, I'm sure WotC would approach them prior to any change and enter into a side agreement of some kind.
And now, Paizo, who benefitted from WotC's last misstep with 4E/GSL, has announced that they're going to release a system-neutral open license for anyone to use. Although, as some pointed out at the time of OGL, you don't need a license to use game rules and mechanics--they're not protected by copyright. In some ways, signing on to such a license can result in giving up more rights than you're otherwise entitled to under the law in exchange for some security (real or perceived) from threats of litigation.
Whether a proposed mark is descriptive or generic depends on the goods or services involved. You could register the mark TAQUERIA for golf clubs, for example. Just like you can have a trademark on the word APPLE for computer but not for actual apples.
I'm using the words in the legal sense, under trademark law. "Descriptive" and "Generic" are two separate categories. A Descriptive word or phrase can be protected as a trademark if is what so-called "secondary meaning." A Generic word or phrase cannot be protected at all.
There are rules relating to translations of foreign words. In the U.S., at least, even though it is a Spanish word it would likely be considered generic here. UK has a similar doctrine--iirc it depends on whether the relevant target consumers would understand the term in its generic/descriptive sense. In which case, you get to argue over the relevant consumers.
Descriptive v. Generic
You can have a trademark in a descriptive term if it has secondary meaning. Seems almost impossible that the UK entity would meet that standard. And, moreoever, taqueria isn't descriptive--it's generic. No one should have a trademark on it.
Not censorship
This isn't censorship, but censorship doesn't require state action. We have a long history of private censorship in the U.S. Private censorship doesn't implicate the First Amendment like government censorship does, but saying it is no longer 'censorship' if a private entity does it is incorrect.
Neeva
Been using Neeva since last fall. It's good. I still occasionally use Google when the search results from Neeva aren't quite what I was expecting but it doesn't happen all that often.
None of this is how trademarks work, however.
Re: Why is there no penalty for the lawyers drafting these? Disb
The answer to this may be simple--we have not seen the complaint. They may not have brought a cause of action to enforce the illegal agreement. It could just be a straightforward defamation action, or other allegations outside of that contract.
Glad to hear it. Used to work with Tom; he's a good guy. If you're ever in St. Louis on January 25, Robert Burns' birthday, go to the Schlafly Tap Room.
I mean, go any time, but particularly at that time.
I don't agree with the "inarguable" likelihood of confusion comments. The TTAB noted that licensed products including the 12th Man mark include a wide variety of offerings, such a coffee, signs, stoneware, phone cases, earrings, tattoo sheets, food trays, towels (which the TTAB finds particularly important) and so on. Given that list of licensed products, it isn't unreasonable for the TTAB to find that people would likely think the soap is also licensed--one of many licensed products.
Which isn't to say there is necessarily going to be such confusion. Only that that TTAB decision isn't as unreasonable as made out in the article.
Had they not found a likelihood of confusion, it would have been interesting to see what they found on the dilution claim.
Grayshift says they've already defeated the new protections:
https://hothardware.com/news/grayshift-beats-usb-restricted-mode