Print

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

[mikepro1]

What class of goods would awristband like "Livestrong" fall under?  You know, the silicone ones.

[CriterionD]

The existing 'Livestrong' mark, as it pertains to wristbands, is filed several times under three international classes:

IC 025, which covers "clothing"

IC 014, which covers "jewelry"

IC 036, which covers "insurance and financial" services, which in this case refer to "charitable fundraising services"

The exact classes which would possibly pertain to a separate wristband depends somewhat on how that wristband is marketed

[JSonnabend]

The exact classes which would possibly pertain to a separate wristband depends somewhat on how that wristband is marketed

Huh?  Could you please explain this statement, because as far as I can tell, it's simply wrong.

- Jeff

[CriterionD]

Huh?  Could you please explain this statement, because as far as I can tell, it's simply wrong.

- Jeff

I didn't make the statement to hold up to technical analysis, and in hindsight I could have been clearer.  But my main point is simply this:

Say someone is introducing a line shirts made from a light rubber material.  They could be considered very fancy, and they contain pieces of jewelry which are “built in” to the shirts.  They are sold in department stores like Robinsons May, clothing stores with a similar selection, and are marketed like any other shirt, made of any other materials.  They are not sold in any really high end catalogues which span all product categories, nor are they sold in rubber product catalogs which sell rubber products across all product categories, nor are they sold in jewelry stores or departments.

Now, the shirts themselves could fall into one or more of at least four [international] classes:

014  Jewelry
017  Rubber Goods
025  Clothing
026  Fancy Goods

I would certainly say though, that that based on how the shirts are marketed, they are most pertinent to class 025, covering “Clothing.”  The logic is that the product would be most likely to cause confusion with other products in this class, and vice versa.

No, it doesn’t mean that this person or his/her attorney could not cite class 026 and/or class 017 instead (or as well) on a trademark application.  

[JSonnabend]

The question was what class wristbands fall under.  How the wristbands are marketed has no bearing on what class they fall under.

As for not intending to post a response that would "hold up to technical analysis", what do you intend to do then, provide misinformation?  Either you know what you're talking about, in which case you should post it, or else you should refrain from doing so.

FWIW, your analysis of the t-shirt hypothetical is largely wrong.

- Jeff

[CriterionD]

The question was what class wristbands fall under.  How the wristbands are marketed has no bearing on what class they fall under.

Wristbands may fall under multiple classes, depending on their exact nature/design/etc.  Mikepro1 cannot control the classes they fall under.  He can hypothetically control which of the classes he were to denote on a trademark application.  The class or classes he would want to include IMO would hopefully depend at least partially on how the wristbands were marketed.  

I might not have originally been extremely clear in my initial response, and may have inadvertently been a slight bit misleading - but thats already been pointed out.  With all do respect I stand by my reply.

For Mikepro1's further reference, if he wanted to figure out exactly which classes that a silicone wristband could possibly fall under, the following two links would likely help him out:

http://www.uspto.gov/go/tac/tmep/1400.htm

http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html

As for not intending to post a response that would "hold up to technical analysis", what do you intend to do then, provide misinformation? Either you know what you're talking about, in which case you should post it, or else you should refrain from doing so.

My intent was and is all good.  Seeking to provide helpful input is separate than seeking to provide formal legal advice.  With all do respect, I do believe that my input was relevant to the information the OP was seeking,  I do not believe that it would have led him to take any unhealthy action, and it was two days since the original post before anyone else replied.  

If you can improve on what I said, great.  

I could have given a more detailed reply, but I wouldn't have necessarily felt comfortable seeking to do that when others on the board including yourself have more experience and education pertinent to the subject matter.

I will also point out that according to the USPTO's guidelines for international classification as stated in chapter 1400,

"Finished products are classified, in principle, according to their function or purpose or the industry that produces them or, secondarily, according to the material of which they are made or the trade in which they are sold."

A product's function is affected at least slightly by how it is marketed.  The trade in which a product is sold is determined by how a product is marketed, as it is determined by a product's marketing channel(s)

FWIW, your analysis of the t-shirt hypothetical is largely wrong.

While standing by my hypothetical analysis as far as practical purposes are concerned, I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt here.  Considering that a correct analysis may be helpful to the OP as well as lurkers that may be curious, perhaps you could explain why it is largely wrong.  

[mikepro1]

What I need to know is that if I own a trademark in class 25 and another company is placing the same trademark on wristbands, is this company infringing my trademark?  PS. That same company has been placing the mark on clothing as well.

[JSonnabend]

What I need to know is that if I own a trademark in class 25 and another company is placing the same trademark on wristbands, is this company infringing my trademark?  PS. That same company has been placing the mark on clothing as well.

Focusing on the class of your registration is almost meaningless.  The question (in substantial part) is whether the goods or services falling under your mark would likely be confused with the allegedly infringing party's use of its mark.  That question can't be answered without knowing a lot more about the two uses, including the specific goods on which you are using your mark.

As for CriterionD's citation to the TMEP, that's all well and good, but I speak from near daily experience with examiners, not from some academic interpretation of the TMEP.  Again, I think it's better to provide accurate advice, not suppositions.  We're not talking about esoteric legal theories or gray areas here, this is nuts-and-bolts tm prosecution stuff.

- Jeff