Trademarks

The Future of Zero-Calorie Soft Drink Trademarks After the TTAB’s Coke Zero™ Ruling and Dr. Pepper Snapple’s Pending Federal Circuit Appeal

March 22, 2017
Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademarks

Joseph Novak, MJLST Staffer

For the past 13 years, Coca-Cola has been trying to trademark nothing. Well not actually nothing. Zero. As in zero calories. During this time, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has denied trademarking Zero for soft drinks, as the term was either generic (Referring to the genus of the good, i.e. Coke Zero as a zero calorie sports drink) or merely descriptive (Describing what the good is, i.e. “Zero” describing “Coke” as a zero-calorie version of the drink); neither of which is distinctive enough upon the Abercrombie spectrum to warrant trademark protection.

Not surprisingly, other large soft drink companies have opposed allowing Coke to register “Zero”, as no other company would be able to use “Zero” on their own mark subsequent to Coke obtaining such a trademark. This past May, the TTAB issued a ruling in favor of Coke (over the opposition of Dr. Pepper Snapple Group) allowing Coke to register numerous trademarks containing “Zero” for their soft drinks. The TTAB held that “Zero” had “acquired distinctiveness through a showing of secondary meaning”, which is a fancy way of saying that Coke had proven that the millions of dollars they had spent on marketing “Zero” meant that consumers of soft drinks were now likely to associate the term “Zero” with the Coca-Cola brand.

The TTAB ruling also contemplates Coke’s trademark infringement claim against Dr. Pepper’s “Diet Rite Pure Zero” mark for likelihood of confusion. For a mark to infringe upon another, the potentially infringing mark must cause confusion to the consuming public as to source, i.e. a showing that consumers of soft drinks would confuse the source of “Diet Rite Pure Zero” with “Coke Zero” given the distinctiveness of the “Coke Zero” mark. The TTAB essentially punts the infringement issue, dismissing Coke’s infringement claim for a failure to prove priority (because Coke could not show that they had acquired distinctiveness through before Dr. Pepper’s use of the term “Zero”, there was no infringement cause of action).

Dr. Pepper Snapple has appealed the issue of distinctiveness to the Federal Circuit, asking the court to find “Zero” as generic for zero-calorie soft drinks. That appeal is still pending. Assuming the TTAB’s finding of acquired distinctiveness for “Coke Zero” holds, the question becomes whether future uses of “[Soft Drink X] Zero” will be barred by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for likelihood of confusion with “Coke Zero”? Or does this TTAB ruling only prevent future use of “Zero” on its own as a mark for soft drinks?

As outlined in this previous MJLST article, both the PTO (in deciding whether or not to register a trademark) and the Federal Circuit (who hears appeals from TTAB decisions) use the Dupont factors to determine whether there is a confusing similarity between a pending mark and an existing mark. These 13 factors, analyzed together as a whole, include:

The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.
The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.
The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.
The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
The fame of the prior mark.
The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
The nature and extent of any actual confusion.
The length of time during and the conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used.
The market interface between the applicant and the owner of a prior mark.
The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods.
The extent of potential confusion.
Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.

Like many likelihood of confusion cases, the analysis would likely come down to (1) similarity between the marks in terms of sight, sound, and meaning, and (2) whether or not either side could show actual confusion or a lack of such. For example, Coke would argue that any subsequent use of “Zero” in connection with a soft drink would be likely to confuse consumers that (according to the TTAB ruling) have come to associate “Zero” and soft drinks with Coca-Cola products. On the other hand, any subsequent user of “Zero” for soft drinks would likely have to rely upon a dissimilarity in appearance of the mark (as “Zero” would be the same in terms of sound and meaning), or show a lack of actual confusion between the two marks. Otherwise, the potential subsequent user could attempt to argue that “Coke Zero” is the mark in its entirety, and that “[Soft Drink X] Zero” is inherently dissimilar in its nature and thus, unlikely to cause consumer confusion.

In any regard, evidence of actual consumer confusion often comes down to which side has better survey design and results, which often correlates with which side has more resources to conduct such a survey. Thus, if the Federal Circuit upholds the TTAB decision to allow the “Zero” trademark, you better believe that Coca-Cola will put in a hero-like effort to protect their long sought-after victory over “Zero.”

Crossing the Offensive Line

October 18, 2016
Constitutional Law, Trademarks

Quang Trang, MJLST Managing Editor

In my opinion, Autumn is easily one of the top four seasons of the year. It is a season where pumpkin becomes a spice, the leaves change colors, I wear cardigans, and of course FOOTBALL. And yeah, the Supreme Court of the United States becomes a thing again.

During its next term, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear Lee v. Tam, a case that may determine the constitutionality of the U.S. Patent Office’s (“USPTO”) authority to refuse a trademark. The USPTO threw a yellow flag and refused to trademark the name of a band called “The Slants” after finding the name crossed an offensive line against Asians. The Slants threw a red flag challenge to have the decision reviewed. Under review, the Federal Circuit reversed the ruling on the field citing First Amendment protection. The USPTO Hail Mary’d the Supreme Court of the United States to protect its authority to reject offensive trademarks.

Under Section 2 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)), the U.S. Patent Office may refuse to register a trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” However, granting the USPTO such authority may violate the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The Federal Circuit found the band’s name to be private speech, and thus entitled to First Amendment protection.

At this point you may be wondering “why is Quang making all these football puns?”, “Does Quang think his puns are funny?”, and “will he stop making bad puns?”

A Supreme Court decision in Lee v. Tam may intercept a case in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit is currently reviewing the USPTO’s refusal to trademark the Washington Redskins after finding the name offensive and disparaging to Native Americans.

If the Supreme Court finds Section 2 of the Lanham Act unconstitutional, then the Fourth Circuit must overturn the USPTO’s refusal to trademark the Washington Redskins. However, if the Supreme Court limits its decision in Lee v Tam to the facts of the case or if the court affirms the USPTO’s ruling, then the Washington Redskins’ challenge may be sacked for good.

If the Washington Redskins loses its challenge, the organization may still keep the name and seek state trademark protection. The team would still be financially impacted if it loses federal protection against copycat merchandising. Changing the team name may then become a financial decision.

Who Owns Your Tattoos?

September 15, 2016
Copyrights, Intellectual Property, Trademarks

Zachary Berger, MJLST Executive Editor

Tattoos are more common today than they have ever been. More than 20 percent of Americans have at least one tattoo, and among millennials nearly 40 percent have at least one tattoo. Most people probably assume that they are the owners of their tattoos. After all, tattoos are part of your body. How can you not own them? However, the answer is a bit more complicated than that. There have been a number of lawsuits relating to tattoo ownership over the years, but a recent one has brought the issue back into the news.

Take-Two Interactive Software is the parent company of 2k Sports and developer Visual Concepts, who create the popular NBA 2K video game series. Solid Oak Sketches is a company that is claiming ownership over a number of tattoos that appear in the game on several prominent players, including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Take-Two has licenses to the players’ likenesses, but Solid Oak claims they alone have the right to license the tattoos, which appear on the players in the game. Tattoos are very prominent in the NBA, and if the players had to appear without them, it would break the sense of realism the game is attempting to convey.Suits such as this one have occurred before, most notably in 2011 when Mike Tyson’s facial tattoo appeared on Ed Helms in the movie The Hangover Part II. However, all of these cases have settled, leaving tattoo ownership in a murky place.

In order to be eligible for copyright protection, a creation must meet three requirements. It must be a work of authorship, it must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and it must be original. It is up for debate whether tattoos meet all of these requirements but many believe they do.

The more interesting question, I think, is once that tattoo is finished, who owns it? Does it belong to the artist or patron? As is frequently the case in the legal field, the answer likely is that “it depends.” The default rule in copyright is that ownership is given to the artist. The University of Minnesota Law School’s own Professor Thomas Cotter is coauthor of one of the earliest and most extensive forays into the question of tattoo ownership. He concluded that there are three possibilities: 1) the artist owns the tattoo in the same way a painter owns what he or she paints on a canvas, 2) the work is a joint work, meaning that “it is prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent copyrightable expression,” or 3) the work is a work for hire. As explained by Timothy C. Bradley of the Coats & Bennet law firm, a “work for hire” applies when the work is 1) prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or 2) specially ordered or commissioned for use in certain circumstances. A “work for hire” is owned by the party that commissions the work.

Take-Two recently won a dismissal of a potentially large damages claim when Judge Laura Taylor dismissed Solid Oak’s statutory damage claim because the tattoo designs Solid Oak claims ownership to were not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office until 2015, but Take-Two first used them in 2013 with the release of NBA 2k14. In order to be able to obtain statutory damages, a plaintiff must have registered their copyright before the alleged infringement. Solid Oak argued that each new 2K game is a separate instance of infringement, but the judge disagreed.

However, Solid Oak is still able to seek actual damages, so the case will continue. In their answer and counterclaim, Take-Two is relying in particular on the defenses of de minimis use and fair use. De minimis is Latin for “minimal things” and essentially means that the infringement was insignificant and not worthy of judicial scrutiny. Fair use is an affirmative defense that allows limited copying without the copyright owner’s permission for the purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, etc. The following factors (from 17 U.S.C. § 107) are used to analyze fair use:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Solid Oak v. 2k Games may be the first tattoo copyright infringement suit to settle on the merits rather than out of court and thus will be a very interesting case to watch going forward. The case is Solid Oak Sketches v. 2K Games and Take-Two Interactive Software, No. 16-CV-724-LTS (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 1, 2016).

“What’S in a Name?” Billions of Dollars, That’s What

March 22, 2016
International, Trademarks

Travis Waller, MJLST Staffer

Cease-and-desist letters have long been one of the most commonly used, and perhaps more potent, of the tools relied upon by organizations and legal counsel to cut short unauthorized 3^rdparty use of material relating to that company’s trademarks. In 2013, Marcella David published a fascinating article in vol. 14 of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology entitled “Trademark Unraveled: The U.S. Olympic Committee Versus Knitters of the World”. This article discussed the “scandal” surrounding the U.S Olympic Committee’s (USOC) harshly worded cease-and-desist letter sent to the operators of a website for knitters, called ravelry.com. What did ravelry.com do to receive this response? Ravelry.com hosted a kind of knitting competition, which it called the “ravelmpics”, in which the site would promote various events (such as the afghan marathon) and award “blog badges” to the winner of these events. Ravelry.com even had commemorative pins made up to memorialize the event.

Soon after the announcement of the “ravelmpics”, the USOC sent a cease-and-desist letter to ravelry.com. The outrage surrounding the USOC’s cease-and-desist letter (which complained that the “ravelympics” made light of Olympic athlete’s lifetime of training and dedication, among other things) was immediate and intense, so much so that the USOC actually apologized to ravelry.com for the letter twice, as well as blamed the contents of the letter on an over-zealous summer associate within the organization’s legal department.

While this event may mark the upper limits of the strange when it comes to brand protection, the Olympic committees appear to have not lost their appetite for using their trademark rights in the word “Olympic” as a sword, as the International Olympic Committee recently carved up the name of a Portland charcuterie shop, now known as Olympia Provisions.

Bologna, right? Not necessarily. (Olympia Provisions prides itself on it’s salami). While organizations like the USOC’s actions against these companies may seem harsh – even ridiculous – at first blush, there can be very real harms to an organization’s branding efforts and trademark protection if prevention of unauthorized use is not vigorously enforced. Remember Aspirin? Linoleum? Trampoline? These names, which have now fallen into common use as terms for items, used to be trademarks. That is, aspirin used to denote a brand of acetylsalicylic acid, made by the company Bayer, and branded as “aspirin”.

This loss of rights is due to an aspect of trademark law that allows the expiration of trademark protection for certain marks that lose their status as “source identifiers”. While it may be difficult now to imagine the word “Olympic” as ever losing its connection to the Olympic Games, words have a funny way of changing meaning simply through their usage over time. To this point, consider “literally”, which today is synonymous with both “actually” and “figuratively” (“literally” antonyms of each other).

Aside from the USOC, the NFL is another large entity that actively enforces it’s use of the “SUPER BOWL” mark through cease-and-desist letters, and does so out of many of the same fears that the USOC uses in justifying it’s strict enforcement of it’s marks.

To bring this discussion to a head, cease-and-desist letters are probably more a tool of necessity than an expression of corporate malice. While there may be the rare occasion of an “over-zealous summer associate” or two, the astronomical economic value associated with the trademarks of many of the worlds most famous brands provides ample incentive to stymie even the most negligible 3^rd party uses, strong likelihood of confusion or not. This is because, like it or not, language is slippery, and far is the fall to “generic”.

Are Trademark’s a Medium for Free Speech?: Federal Circuit Considers Whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act Violates the First Amendment

October 6, 2015
Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property, Trademarks

Michael Laird, MJLST Staffer

The Federal Circuit recently heard arguments en banc in a case considering the relationship between intellectual property regimes, specifically trademark law, and freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The long-term rule comes from the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals—the predecessor to the Federal Circuit—in the case In re McGinley. 660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981). There, the court held: “with respect to appellant’s First Amendment rights, it is clear that PTO’s refusal to register appellant’s mark [as a trademark] does not affect his right to use it. No conduct is proscribed, and no tangible form of expression is suppressed.” Id. at 484. Under that traditional rule, trademark law was held consistent with the first amendment because an applicant is still permitted to use a mark, whether or not it is trademark eligible. However, that precedent may be at risk.

On Friday, October 3, the Federal Circuit heard arguments for In re Tam on the question of whether § 2(a) of the Lanham Act is consistent with the right of free speech. Section 2(a) bars trademark eligibility for a mark that “consists of or comprises of immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” 28 U.S.C. § 1052(a). In Tam, § 2(a) was the basis for denying trademark registration for “The Slants”, the name of an Asian-American band because of its disparagement of those of Asian descent.

The court appeared to latch on to concerns that the logic of McGinley would be applicable in the copyright regime since rejection of a copyright would also not inhibit the applicant’s right to use that material. The court asked: “would [it] be constitutional and not a first amendment violation if Congress enacted a statute that said, ‘we’re going to regulate Copyrights and not allow copyright registration to issue to scandalous, immoral, or disparaging copyrights?’” Recording of Oral Arguments, In re Tam, No. 2014-1203 at 39:13 (Fed. Cir. October 2, 2015). The Government conceded, and Court appeared to agree that Congress could not bar disparaging art from copyright registration, as it does with trademarks. See id. at 39:33.

If a work cannot be denied copyright registration because the government concludes the work is disparaging, then some distinction between a copyright and trademark must exist for the government to reject a trademark on that basis. The Government was mostly unsuccessful in providing a means to distinguish the two regimes. The court, however, discussed a few possibilities.

First, the nature of speech in copyrighted material differs from the marks which are eligible for trademark protection. Copyrightable material may involve fundamental political speech and other private speech, which is protected under a heightened scrutiny by the first amendment. Id. at 41:30. Conversely, trademarks, as a means to associate the producer of goods and a brand or logo, constitutes commercial speech.

Second, as one judge stated: “the distinction that could be made is that in copyright, if the government has these limitations it’s so coercive that it essentially…prevents you from [certain] speech. Whereas the trademark realm, although it takes away some benefits of federal registration…it’s not so coercive that the restriction is a burden on free speech.” Id. at 44:30. This argument relates to McGinley, since independent of whether a trademark is granted or denied, the mark owner has the right to use his or her mark in public. In the copyright realm however, the logic of McGinley fails because the denial of a copyright might actually chill speech because of the risk that it will be misappropriated by someone else.

Third, the court differentiated the purpose of the copyright and trademark regimes: “isn’t a copyright a forum for the expression of the arts…whereas a trademark goes to the very heart of stability in the marketplace?” Id. at 5:23. Like a distinction between the nature of a trademark and copyright, the purpose of the systems diverge. Copyright is inherently protective of speech generally. Yet, most trademarks do not concern traditional speech, but protecting an association between the producer of a good and a brand or other mark.

Whether any argument will persuade the court that trademark law is distinct from copyright in some way that permits a disparagement bar to trademark registration remains to be seen. Notably, the court need not resolve the issue, if it were to determine that § 2(a) should be upheld or rejected based on the whether a trademark constitutes private, public, or commercial speech. Either way, the implications of the court’s ruling could impact another major ongoing disparagement case concerning the Washington Redskins’ trademark which is being appealed in the Fourth Circuit. If you are interested in listening to the argument in full, you can find a copy here.

Kirtsaeng’s Parade of [Less]-Horribles

April 17, 2013
Business, Copyrights, Intellectual Property, Trademarks

by Caroline Marsili, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

In a 6-3 decision that came down March 25, the Supreme Court held that copyright’s first sale doctrine, which allows the lawful purchaser of a copyrighted product to resell the product without interference from the copyright holder, applies to copyrighted works lawfully made abroad. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons marks the resolution of a decades-long uncertainty over the potential international reach of the first sale doctrine. This moment of clarity, however, is sure to be followed by challenges, given the newly-sanctioned threat to some domestic industries.

From a legal standpoint, the case was rightly decided. Briefly, plaintiff publishing company John Wiley & Sons sought relief from Cornell student-turned-professor Supap Kirtsaeng, who paid his way through university by reselling Wiley’s English-language textbooks manufactured abroad. Kirtsaeng’s family bought the books in Thailand and mailed them to Kirtsaeng, who resold them on eBay for a profit. In finding for Kirtsaeng, the majority attempted to reconcile a tension between the language of § 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which gives copyright owners redress for unauthorized importation of their copyrighted work into the U.S., and the first sale doctrine (§ 109(a)), which gives owners of particular copies “lawfully made under this title” the right to sell the copy without the owner’s permission.

As author Benjamin Hamborg astutely foreshadowed in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng: The Uncertain Future of the First Sale Doctrine (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 13.2), the Court reasoned that the text of 109(a) contains no geographical limitations, and that Congressional intent and historical context further require an interpretation of first sale unbound by territory. Justice Breyer’s majority opinion further acknowledges the far-reaching policy implications a geographical limitation would have on “[a]ssociations of libraries, used-book dealers, technology companies, consumer-goods retailers, and museums.” In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg criticized the Court’s “parade of horribles” as unfounded, and observed the opinion would frustrate Congress’s intent to permit international market segmentation by copyright owners. Ultimately, in reversing the Second Circuit and criticizing a “purely geographical interpretation” of 109(a), the decision represents a victory for institutions such as libraries and for consumers.

But while the Court dodged the parade of horribles that Justice Breyer adamantly sought to avoid in oral arguments, the international reach of first sale sounds alarms for U.S. companies that will be threatened by unrestricted gray market competition. A recent NYTimes article aptly identifies some of the other horribles waiting in the wings of an international exhaustion doctrine, including the undercutting of domestic software prices, de-segmentation of international publishing markets, threats to a burgeoning secondhand digital marketplace (though first sale may not apply here), and another nail in the coffin of print publications. Further, Kirtsaeng has the potential to set an example for amateur sellers to profit from gray market goods.

So what’s to be done? In “Next Moves For IP Law After SCOTUS First-Sale Ruling,” Lisa Shuchman suggests a number of options for copyright owners to numb the sting of Kirstaeng. Options include pursuing other legal remedies like contract and more expansive trademark protection, digitizing their protected content, raising domestic prices (to off-set losses from sale of imported copies), and pursuing statutory reform. Others suggest first sale is on its way to mootness in an increasingly digital economy. Raustiala and Sprigman’s solution? “Stop selling copies. Start licensing digital files.” Still others argue statutory reform is unavoidable. Andrew Albanese suggests the Court did what was best with a convoluted statute, but that Congress will need to address the outdated Copyright Act.

Though Kirstaeng undoubtedly provides much-needed clarification on the status of first sale, the story isn’t over for domestic copyright owners seeking to prevent unwanted, but now legal, importation of their works. Grab a seat on the curb . . .

Will the Good Deed of Respondent John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Go Unpunished?

March 6, 2013
Copyrights, Education, Intellectual Property, Trademarks

by David Hanna, MJLST Lead Article Editor, UMN J.D./M.S. in Chemistry Joint Degree Candidate

On February 7, 2013, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [“Wiley”] announced that it would make 12,200 Online Books available in eighty developing countries through the Research4Life initiatives of HINARI (the World Health Organization’s Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative.), AGORA (Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture) and OARE ( Online Access to Research in the Environment). With Wiley’s contribution, Research4Life can now boast an impressive number of almost 30,000 peer reviewed scientific journals, books and databases made available to developing countries for free or for low cost access. With the Supreme Court of the United States [“SCOTUS”] currently deciding the fate for Wiley in a pending case against petitioner Supap Kirtsaeng d/b/a Bluechristine99 [“Kirtsaeng”], could Wiley’s charitable contributions come at a more convenient time?

On October 29, 2012, SCOTUS heard oral arguments on behalf of petitioner Kirtsaeng and respondent Wiley in a case involving the first-sale doctrine in copyright law which enables owners to sell or transfer copyrighted items to other parties without seeking permission from the original copyright holder. In the case, SCOTUS is deciding on the particular issue of whether the first-sale doctrine applies to copies of copyrighted works made and legally acquired outside the United States and then imported into the United States.

How does the “good guy” fit into the picture? Wiley brought a copyright infringement suit against Kirtsaeng, a graduate foreign student currently in the United States who had been receiving textbooks produced by Wiley Asia from his family and friends outside of the United States and then selling them for a profit on eBay. In responding to Wiley’s suit, Kirtsaeng presented the first-sale doctrine as a defense. Both the District Court and Second Circuit denied Kirtsaeng the “first sale” doctrine and ruled that the defense did not apply to foreign-manufactured books.

The Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology’s recent publication, “John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng: The Uncertain Future of the First-Sale Doctrine,” identifies the important implications of SCOTUS’s upcoming decision on the U.S. economy. Author Benjamin Hamborg states, “In an already struggling economy, the last thing that the country needs is precedent giving companies a further incentive to move manufacturing plants overseas.”

Will Wiley’s recent contributions cast a positive light on the company while SCOTUS decides whether to uphold the lower courts’ holding which denied a first-sale doctrine defense to Kirtsaeng? Will SCOTUS consider the implications of the case on this country’s disintegrating economy? Now, Kirtsaeng has to worry not only about his pending copyright infringement case before the superior court of the land but also about his opponent’s charitable good deed. Perhaps, Kirtsaeng might find it in his best interest between now and the time SCOTUS releases its decision to make a charitable donation from some of the profits earned from his book buying and selling business.

« 1 2

Trademarks

Contact Information