Intent to Use Trademark Applications: Pros and Cons, Demonstrating ITU, Converting to Actual Use

Transcription

1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Intent to Use Trademark Applications: Pros and Cons, Demonstrating ITU, Converting to Actual Use THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: James L. Bikoff, Partner, Smith Gambrell & Russell, Washington, D.C. Victoria Burke, Esq., Scott+Scott, San Diego Hillary Kane, Interim Director of Public Affairs, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles Darlene S. Klinksieck, Trademark Portfolio Manager, Smith Gambrell & Russell, Washington, D.C. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.

2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at ext. 35.

4 Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

5 INTENT TO USE TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS V I C T O R I A B U R K E, E S Q A T T O R N E Y, S C O T T + S C O T T, A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W, LLP

6 15 U.S.C. 1051(b)(1) A person who has a bona fide intention, under circumstances showing the good faith of such person, to use a trademark in commerce may request registration of its trademark on the principal register hereby established by paying the prescribed fee and filing in the Patent and Trademark Office an application and a verified statement To convert an ITU application to actual use, applicant later must file a statement of use (SOU) to attain formal TM registration. 6

7 WHY DO WE HAVE ITU APPLICATIONS? 1988 Congress amended the Lanham Act by passing the Trademark Law Revision Act (TLRA) Up until 1988, an applicant had to prove actual use of an applied-for mark Leveled the playing field between U.S. and international applicants In many foreign countries, an applicant is not required to prove actual use before attaining a TM registration 7

8 INTERNATIONAL APPLICANTS Under section 44e (Paris Convention), international applicants could establish priority in US based on their existing foreign registration (which could be obtained without showing use) After the change in law in 1988, applicants relying on an international registration filing under section 44e and section 66a (Madrid Protocol) must submit verification of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce when registering that mark with the USPTO 8

9 PURPOSE IS NOT TO RESERVE A MARK An applicant must have a bona fide intention to use a mark at the time of filing an application. But what exactly does bona fide mean? Unclear what circumstances may demonstrate good faith Congress in drafting the Trademark Law Revision Act omitted a statutory definition of the term bona fide 9

10 OBJECTIVE Legislative History: Bona fide should be read to mean a fair, objective determination of the applicant s intent based on all the circumstances. S. Rep. No , at 23 (1988) J. Thomas McCarthy: the evidence is objective in the sense that it is evidence in the form of real life facts and by the actions of the applicant. -3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition 19:14 (4 th ed. 2015) 10

11 TIMING IS PARAMOUNT Bona fide intention to use must exist at the time of filing Swatch AG v. M.Z. Berger & Co., 108 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1463, 1476 (T.T.A.B. 2013)(precedential) As long as the applicant s bona fide intention to use is OBJECTIVELY PRESENT at the filing, the documentary evidence for this intent does not necessarily have to be contemporaneous with the actual filing date. -Lane Ltd. V. Jackson Int l Trading Co., 33 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1351, 1357 (T.T.A.B. 1994) Ex: Intention exists at time of filing, but it may be conditionally based on the outcome of a future event related to business development. -S. Rep. No , at 24 (1988). 11

12 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? During an opposition to registration, if the TTAB finds an applicant lacked the requisite bona fide intention to use AT THE TIME OF FILING, the application becomes void ab initio. Spirits Int l, B.V. V. S.S. Taris Zeytin Ve Zeytinyagi Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri Birligi, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1545, 1546 n.3 (T.T.A.B. 2011). If void ab initio, then claims such as priority or likelihood of confusion will not be entertained. -SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1305 (T.T.A.B. 2010) (precedential). Hence the importance of an attorney to counsel a client to proactively establish objective evidence at time of filing. Having an attorney sign off is not sufficient to demonstrate intent. -Trs. Of the Bonnie Cashin Found. V. Lake, No , slip. Op. at 3, 9 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2016) (nonprecedential) 12

13 POORLY BUILT APPLICATIONS: TTAB EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT Relies on subjective evidence Absence of any documentary evidence Thus applicant s documentary evidence should be presentable in a definitive format at time of filing. -Honda Motor Co. v. Winklemann, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1660, 1664 (T.T.A.B. 2009). Must be more than merely steps made to file a TM application -SWATCH AG V. M.Z. Berger & Co., 108 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1463, 1472 (T.T.A.B. 2013). Intended use must be for more than to reserve a right in a mark -Commodore Elecs. Ltd. V. CBM Kabushiki Kaisha, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1503, 1506 n.7 (T.T.A.B. 1993). Must be more than idealist hopes for forming a company. -Lincoln Nat l Corp. v. Anderson, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA (1271, (T.T.A.B. 2014) (precedential). Owning a patent on its own is not sufficient (though it could go toward the totality of the circumstances) -SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1304 (T.T.A.B. 2010). 13

14 MUST HAVE S Must convey enough objective evidence to convey a legitimate business plan. -PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Young, No , 2013 WL , at *5-6 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2013)(nonprecedential) Business plan needs to be more than securing a mark with the purpose of using said mark to attract investors -Diageo N. Am., Inc. v. Captain Russel Corp., No , 2013 WL , at *4-5 (T.T.A.B. June 12, 2013)(nonprecedential) Should be able to show plans to produce any goods identified in the application. Ex: TTAB found a lack of a legitimate business plan where [a]pplicant has neither given thought to where its goods under the [subject] mark would be manufactured, nor identified or contracted with third parties who might manufacture such goods, nor identified materials needed therefor, nor prepared any schematics therefor, nor prepared instructional manuals. -SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1301 (T.T.A.B. 2010). 14

15 ADDITIONAL APPLICATION PROBLEMS Applying for an excessive number of trademark applications or filing in numerous unrelated classes could be indicative of an applicant who: lacks a bona fide intention to use and/or is acting in bad faith. -L Oréal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1434, (T.T.A.B. 2012). 15

16 IFFY: SOMETIMES SUFFICIENT / SOMETIMES NOT ENOUGH Some business planning exists: Enough: Single, pre-filing regarding the general goal of expanding the use of the trademark to other goods along with some initial talks with potential licensees regarding brand expansion was enough (Notably, post-filing documentation was used in conjunction with pre-filing documentation to establish pre-filing intent) -Hard Candy Cases, LLC v. Hard Candy, LLC, No , slip op. at (T.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2014) (nonprecedential) Insufficient: Vague references to research and development of products in the annual meeting minutes --SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1300, 1304 (T.T.A.B. 2010). 16

17 ABILITY TO CURE AN APPLICATION If Applicant is guilty of excessive filing BUT lacks bad faith And Applicant can produce evidence of a bona fide intention to use at least some goods claimed in a class Then applicant may amend or divide out the goods in the application in a divisional procedure -Wet Seat, Inc. v. FD Management, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1629, 1630 (T.T.A.B. 2007). -Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Creative Harbor, LLC, 846 F.3d 857 (6 th Cir. 2017). International: Applicant seeking to register a mark based on a foreign registration is also afforded this same opportunity to cure. -Sandro Andyd S.A. v. Light Inc., No. 12 Civ. 2393, 2012 WL at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012) 17

18 TIPS AS AN ATTORNEY Do not blindly sign off on an ITU application for a client without ensuring some proper thresholds have been met. -Trs. Of the Bonnie Cashin Found. V. Lake, No , slip op. at 3 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2016). At the time of filing, an applicant should have a definite plan explaining the purpose of the mark and documented to the degree appropriate to the product or service in question. -J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition 19:14 (4 th ed. 2015). Applicant should maintain a record of the names of the people involved in developing and marketing the products or services to be offered under the trademark. These people will later be able to support, by testimony in opposition or cancellation proceedings, the presence of bona fide intent to use the mark. 18

19 ROADMAP TO USE FOR CLIENTS: 1. Applicant s name (name of applicant or company) 2. Today s date 3. Who prepared the form for the trademark registration (applicant, counsel, other)? 4. Have any business plans been discussed for the trademark (informal or formal)? If yes, provide: Date discussions held Company members involved in the discussions Location where these discussions were held Format of business plans (written or unwritten) 19

20 ROADMAP CONTINUED 5. Has any market research for the product or service to be offered for sale under the trademark been conducted? Describe steps taken List the people in the company responsible for the marketing decisions regarding the products/services for which the TM/SM will be used 6. What steps were taken to ensure trademark availability? Was a trademark search undertaken? Date conducted Conducted by whom Method of TM search (informal Internet search, commonlaw trademark search, or via a formal trademark search company) 20

21 ROADMAP CONTINUED 7. Have any efforts been made to create a graphic representation of the trademark? Graphic designer s name Date graphic artist was consulted 8. Have any labels been made for a product or service bearing the mark? (attach samples) 9. Has the mark been used in test marketing? Date(s) Details of the marketing test 21

22 ROADMAP CONTINUED 10. Have any attempts been made to locate potential licensees? If yes, were these attempts for domestic or international (or both) licensees? Provide: Dates of attempts to secure licensees Names of potential licensees approached Method for contacting potential licensees (phone, , in-person meets, etc) 11. Were any steps taken to secure permits necessary for conducting business with the trademark (regulatory)? 22

23 ROADMAP CONTINUED 12. Do you have any correspondence referring to efforts to launch products or services bearing the trademark? 13. Were any measures taken to secure an online presence (domain name registration, website construction)? Date(s) of efforts Details of the registration/construction process 14. Have any steps been taken to procure physical space for the trademark products/services and business? Address or location Date location was secured (or date prospective dates mtgs held) Under whose name was the space lease or titled 23

24 ROADMAP CONTINUED 15. Have any steps been taken to prepare for the manufacturing of the product? Name of company and names of people contacted 16. What planning has been done: Budget Materials purchased 24

25 THANK YOU James L. Bikoff Victoria Burke Hillary Kane Darlene S. Klinksieck 25