Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum software has been upgraded.  New registrations are not currently permitted while we iron out any bugs and other matters.  Please report any problems you find.

Author Topic: Trademark Application Question - Help!  (Read 992 times)

jaqesq

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Trademark Application Question - Help!
« on: 06-16-11 at 02:07 pm »


I am planning on filing a trademark for my new web-based business - "fruit services" - which provides "apple" services. There are registered trademarks in the most-applicable class for one holder that uses "fruit business" and provides "orange" and "grapefruit" services. The description will be different - it will focus on apples, pears and similar fruit rather than oranges, grapefruits, etc., but the marks are used in fruit arena.

Should I take a chance and file in that class?

Should I try file in another class?

Should I file in both classes? (will that make it likely that both classes get rejected)

Thanks!
Logged

Zonath

  • Guest
Re: Trademark Application Question - Help!
« Reply #1 on: 06-16-11 at 09:28 pm »

For an entirely descriptive mark (like 'fruit business' would almost certainly be) to be able to appear on the principal register, the USPTO would need to determine that 'fruit business' has come to have a meaning secondary to its regular, wholly-descriptive meaning.  Thus, for 'fruit business' to appear on the primary register, the USPTO would need to find that 'fruit business' has come to be associated with this one particular company amongst a relatively substantial segment of the market.  The USPTO would also need to find that 'fruit business' isn't generic (and a name like 'fruit business' is probably a pretty good bet to be a wholly generic term for a business dealing in fruits of various types.)  Without a finding of these factors, the USPTO would relegate 'fruit business' to the supplemental register, where it gets basically no respect from the USPTO, and no real protection beyond what the common law would give. 

It's also possible that 'fruit business' could also be incorporated into a logo containing non-generic design elements, but in that case, the fruit business with 'fruit business' in its logo would likely have to disclaim any right to the name 'fruit business' when used outside of its distinctive logo.  Again, it seems like 'fruit business' would be the sort of mark that would be completely generic for a fruit business, and so would likely need to be disclaimed if 'fruit business' didn't want to deal with a long process of trying to prove secondary meaning and the likelihood of a denial at the end of the process.

And even if 'fruit business' were a mark on the principal register, it's entirely unlikely that they would be able to completely block any company operating on a similarly fruit-based model from using the term 'fruit', since after all, 'fruit' is a wholly generic term for...  well, for fruit.  So I would think that 'fruit services' or 'fruit market' would be able to use the word 'fruit' in their names, but would also need to expect similar obstacles to registration as a company like 'fruit business' would, since all those terms are so generic or descriptive -- I would expect any such business applying for registration to have to have their mark sit in the cheap seats of the supplemental register until there's simply no question that people have come to think of 'fruit services' as a very particular fruit services company (and all this assuming that the USPTO wouldn't just find 'fruit services' to be entirely too generic a name for a company which provides services to apples, pears, or even tomatoes and cayenne peppers.)

Due to these considerations, I would think that coming up with some sort of fanciful or suggestive name to tack onto your fruit services company, such as 'Perihelion fruit services', would greatly enhance the likelihood of your trademark being approved for registration, and you wouldn't have quite so many uncertainties regarding whether or not you would be able to ever get any trademark protection for your name (since it's not just a generic term for your type of business).  Adopting some sort of fanciful or suggestive name for your fruit company would also tend to reduce the likelihood that the USPTO would decline your application due to your mark having a substantial likelihood of confusion with another mark.
Logged

Superchicken

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
    • Wells Law
    • Email
Re: Trademark Application Question - Help!
« Reply #2 on: 06-25-11 at 08:05 pm »

I concur with Zonath.  :)
Logged
T. Wells
Wells Law
Intellectual Property | Business | Entertainment 
www.thewellslawfirm.com

*No attorney-client relationship exists by my comments above.  No atty-client relationship unless signed retainer between lawyer and client

JSonnabend

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Trademark Application Question - Help!
« Reply #3 on: 06-27-11 at 07:37 am »

Assuming your hypothetical is using fruit names to illustrate the point, not literally, I think the last two responses are a bit off.

Likelihood of confusion does not really take ID classification into consideration.  Two ID's in the same class may less alike than two in different classes.  What is more, you can't really pick and choose your class.  You describe your goods/services and the examiner will require that they be placed in the right class.

More importantly, you should analyze your goods/services with the other parties' goods/services, and also analyze the similarities between everyone's marks.  The more alike these elements are, the more likely the marks conflict.

- Jeff
Logged
SonnabendLaw
Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Brooklyn, USA
718-832-8810
JSonnabend@SonnabendLaw.com

Superchicken

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
    • Wells Law
    • Email
Re: Trademark Application Question - Help!
« Reply #4 on: 07-02-11 at 06:31 pm »

If I am understanding your issue, I agree with the JSonnabend that you can't just apply in another class if that class is not the class your mark is going to be used for.  The description of your good/service does control.  That being said, I do agree with Zonath that one approach is to get a mark for a logo incorporating the name.  This has worked for my clients.  The protection is only in that specific design and not in the words incorporated in the design, but I have seen cases where a party was able to maintain an infringment action against someone using the words in their design mark.  Aso the design will help get around descriptiveness problems if the real name for the "fruit business" will be similarly descriptive.   

Again, you can't just pick a random classification.  However, assuming you do pick a proper classification, I have seen where the ID classification was taken into consideration when a trademark examining attorney raised a likelihood of confusion argument for marks that, IMHO, weren't all that similar in name or description.  The fact that they were in the same class was noted.  It is also true that classes can be totally different and there still be a likelihood of confusion objection.

Since you are treading into a murky area for a non-lawyer (and maybe the lawyers too), I suggest you consult with a lawyer who might be able to properly craft the description or suggest, like Zonath did, that you find a more fanciful (unique) mark to avoid all this gray area and increase your odds of getting the registration.
Logged
T. Wells
Wells Law
Intellectual Property | Business | Entertainment 
www.thewellslawfirm.com

*No attorney-client relationship exists by my comments above.  No atty-client relationship unless signed retainer between lawyer and client
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 17 queries.