Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BobRoberts]

I recall that "threepeat" was registered for, inter alia, T-shirts, coffe mugs, etc (I think by Pat Riley or his wife)...  What source is it identifying, exactly?  The Los Angeles Lakers?  Or was there actually a company called 'Threepeat" that created the t-shirts?


Just wondering... 

[Yak]

Although I typically hate citing wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-peat

Looks like Pat Riley has a company which owns the rights to the mark "three-peat".  He has also recently filed an application for "threepeat" which has an Office action pending, I didn't look at the OA yet.

[BobRoberts]

Thanks Yak...  I did see that Wiki article, and was bothered by their 'definition'of the mark as being a reference to a team that wins three championships in a row. Basically, under that definition, the source identified would be the team that won three championships.  However, when the term is used for the next team that wins three championships, the new use would by its very nature, seem to dilute/confuse the previous use as the source being identified has changed.  So it would seem that with each new use, a new TM application would need to be filed?

I suppose that the source identifier would be for a company that manufacturers T-shirts, hats, etc...  So, when 'Threepeat' is seen by the public, it is related/identifies as 'that company that makes hats and shirts that say 'threepeat'''.

I did see the Office Action that you were referring to about a month ago when I was thinking about this, and if I recall correctly, the office action was stating that the use was ornamental rather than Trademark/source-identifier use.

As Trademarks really isn't (or at least wasn't planned to be) my major area of practice, I still get stumped occasional on the straight-forward questions.

[Yak]

Thanks Yak...  I did see that Wiki article, and was bothered by their 'definition'of the mark as being a reference to a team that wins three championships in a row. Basically, under that definition, the source identified would be the team that won three championships.  However, when the term is used for the next team that wins three championships, the new use would by its very nature, seem to dilute/confuse the previous use as the source being identified has changed.  So it would seem that with each new use, a new TM application would need to be filed?

Thus why I typically hate citing Wikipedia.  I read the first paragraph slightly different by parsing out the trademark information from what appeared to be more a general definition of the term. 

I suppose that the source identifier would be for a company that manufacturers T-shirts, hats, etc...  So, when 'Threepeat' is seen by the public, it is related/identifies as 'that company that makes hats and shirts that say 'threepeat'''.

I think that seems to be the only logic that makes sense to me.  So Pat Riley (through Riles & Co.) controls the brand which would identify various shirts, jackets, mugs, bumper stickers, etc., etc.  I assume Riles and Co. isn't actually making any products by that brand.  They are only licensing out the name, kind of like Donald Trump licensing out the "Trump" name to hotels he has zero interest in. 

I did see the Office Action that you were referring to about a month ago when I was thinking about this, and if I recall correctly, the office action was stating that the use was ornamental rather than Trademark/source-identifier use.

I believe so, it was refused as ornamental and the examining attorney asked for a claim of ownership if applicant was the same owner as the cited "three-peat" and three peat" marks. 

I also read the TTAB decision from a cancellation proceeding brought by a t-shirt maker for the "three-peat" mark.  http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?flNm=92021869-09-06-2001&system=TTABIS
Although some of the petitioner's arguments made sense, the TTAB did not see any evidence to support those arguments so the petition to cancel was dismissed.  The TTAB felt that while the term "three -peat" had a different and well known meaning associated with consecutive sports victories, it had no particular identifying meaning related to the "goods".  So I think your point above about if the mark was an identifier of championship teams then the generic argument might be a winner.   

As Trademarks really isn't (or at least wasn't planned to be) my major area of practice, I still get stumped occasional on the straight-forward questions.

Same here, I usually hope JSonnabend jumps in...

[JSonnabend]

I see a pending application for "threepeat" by Riles and Company.  Link.  The ID is for "hats, jackets and shirts".  So the mark is for a clothing company, same as Levi's or Izod.

Personally, I think this registration may very well be invalid (if it issues).  The "mark" is likely ornamentation, I believe, as the confusion around here probably demonstrates.

- Jeff