Puma failed to register “Puma Tokyo 2021” as a trademark in the US

The German sportswear producer PUMA faced a challenge to register a trademark for “Puma Tokyo 2021” in the US.

The USPTO refused the application for this mark with the argument that it refers clearly to the Olympic Games and the United States Olympic Committee.

The application was filed on the same day as the announced rescheduling of the Tokyo Olympics. This can mislead consumers to think that there is a connection between Puma and the Olympic Games including the United States Olympic Committee.

Earlier this year other applications filed in the US by the German producer for “Puma Euro 2021” and “Puma Euro 2022” were turned down too.

Source: insidethegames.biz.

Advertisement

USPTO soften the email requirement in case of new trademark applications

USPTO changed its mind and soften the requirement for providing an owner email address in every trademark application for the US. This was required apart from the email of the industrial property representative or trademark attorney.

According to the amendments, this second mail will be still required, however, it could be not the owner’s email. That is to say, apart from the attorney email every applicant has to submit another email address too.

Sourse: DSP Paper.

New requirements for trademark filing in the US

Marques Class 46 reports about new requirements by the USPTO in cases of filing trademark applications. From now on, every application has to contain the applicant’s email address. It doesn’t matter whether it is filed by industrial property representative or trademark attorney, the owner’s mail has to be mentioned in order for the mark to receive a filing date.

Another important announcement is the fact that in the case of specimens submitted for the purpose of proving trademark use in the US, all of them has to show not only the brand or its label, but as they are attached to the product itself, the image of which can represent a specimen. Otherwise, it is possible for specimens to be rejected by the Office.

MLS and David Beckham attacked Inter Milan in The US

The US Major League Soccer (MLS) filed an opposition against a US trademark application for INTER owned by the Italian football club Inter Milan for classes 9, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 41.

The main ground for this opposition was lack of distinctiveness and descriptiveness of the word INTER in relation to the football goods and services.

MLS started this proceeding because of its plans for the new Inter Miami football club, which will start playing in the league in 2020. The president and one of the shareholders in this club is David Beckham.

According to the trademark law in The US and around the world, the trademark owner has the right to use the mark, dispose of it and to prohibit third parties of using it.

In light of this, MLS considers the word INTER as not distinctive for the reason of which it has not to be monopolized by any sport club bearing in mind how many clubs use it such as Inter Turku, Inter Leipzig, Inter Baku, Inter de Grand-Goave, NK Inter Zapresic, Inter Moengotapoe, Inter de Luanda. Inter Club d’Escaldes, Inter Atlanta FC.

It is highly likely that this opposition will be successful but for goods and services which regard football as a sport. For those of the goods and services, however, where INTER has inherited distinctiveness, the trademark can be registered which at least will give some merchandising advantages to Inter Milan.

Most likely there will be negotiations between the clubs.

Source: SI.com.

USPTO’s position on Alice/Mayo implementation

The USPTO published its new guidelines on the eligibility of subject matter in patent applications.

With these guidelines, the USPTO gives some important clarifications on the implementation of the first step of the US Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test. There are two main changed in that regard:

• First, in accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve certainty and reliability, the revised guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes certain groupings of subject matter: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
   
• Second, the revised guidance includes a two-prong inquiry for whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. In the first prong, examiners will evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception and if so, proceed to the second prong. In the second prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, then the claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. In such a case, further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test is required.

For more information here.

Laura Peter is the new USPTO Director

The USPTO announced its new Director, Ms Laura Peter, who has a serious background in the field of intellectual property working for different companies the last of which is the Silicon Valley tech company A10 Networks where she was General Advisor. Ms Peter will take the helm of one of the busiest Patent Offices in the world with more than 13 000 employees.

For more information here.

Google is not a generic term in the US

ARS Technica UK reports an interesting story from the US where the Supreme Court refused to review a petition which asserts that the term “google” is too generic and therefore cannot be a trademark anymore.

According to that petition, the word Google has been widely used as a term for searching on internet. Due to that fact, this trademark is no more eligible to serve as a trade source.

The Federal court ruled in that case last year considering that although Google is used as e term describing the process of searching on internet, it is still a valid trademark because Google offers other products too and the word is connected with different goods and services. What’s more, we have a generic term when the name has become an “exclusive descriptor” that makes it difficult for competitors to compete unless they use that name, which is not the case with Google.

More information here.