Orange County Trademark Attorney - Orange County Trademark Lawyer

Orange County - On May 3rd General Motors filed a trademark application to secure the rights to the Riviera nameplate, which was used by Buick for almost forty years.

The move to register the Riviera trademark was possibly sparked by the favorable reception it received as a concept car at both the 2007 Shanghai Auto Show and the 2008 North American International Auto Show. The front-wheel drive concept car featured gull-wing doors and a two-plus-two seating configuration.

General Motors is not the only automaker to try to cash in on the nostalgia of old nameplates for a new model. In addition to a possible comeback for the Riviera, GM also brought back the Pontiac GTO in 2004 and recently, the Buick Regal. Chrysler has also looked to its lineup of oldies while attempting to appeal to a younger demographic. For some of its rear-drive full-size sedans, the company re-introduced the popular 300 and Dodge Charger nameplates.

The fact that General Motors has filed to register the Riviera trademark may not mean we will be seeing the production of the vehicle in the near future or even at all. A spokesperson for Buick commented on the recent trademark filing by stating, "I wouldn't read too much into this," adding that the car maker hasn't made any decisions on whether or not to revive the Riviera. General Motors regularly registers trademarks for possible vehicles that come from both new names and historic models.

However, there is also the possibility that General Motors may use the Riviera nameplate to introduce a sporty coupe, vastly different from the flagship Buick models that have widely appealed to older drivers. Now that Saturn and Pontiac are no longer in the business of making coupes and convertibles, it might be a good move for the company to produce a Buick coupe to attract a younger demographic.

As one of General Motors premium brands, Buick manufactured the Riviera from 1963 to 1999, with over 1.1 million models sold in the United States.

Orange County - MiN New York is claiming that Sephora, the national retailer of cosmetics and fragrances, has violated its trademark rights to the term Fragrance Flights. In response, Sephora argues that the term is generic similar to "wine flights" for use by a wine bar.

MiN New York is a boutique offering fragrances, hair care products, soaps, candles, and home decorating accessories. MiN New York has been offering its customers the opportunity to sample several fragrances at the same time, similar to a wine bar offering small samplings of wine. Calling the sampling process a "fragrance flight," it was not surprising that MiN was unhappy to hear that Sephora is now offering a similar experience under the same name.

Sephora has based its personalized fragrance flight bars off the Sensorium pop-up shop it hosted last year. The company has described the experience as an opportunity for its customers to sample scents without bias, using their "impressions" instead of judging the scents by traditional fragrance notes. At the flight bars, the scents are broken down into four groups: addictive, playful, casual, and chic, and are all presented in stemless wine glasses.

The concept behind the fragrance flights is that since the scents are offered for sample unbranded, the customer will actually choose something they like the smell of, rather than simply choosing it based on its brand or alluring packaging.

After MiN issued a statement to the press saying that Sephora had "blatantly disregarded copyrighted and trademarked content owned by MiN New York," Sephora issued its own statement, saying:

"Today's press report on racked.com is the first we heard of any problem with MiN NY. Sephora is also a brand owner and takes claims of infringement very seriously but in this case, there seems to be a misunderstanding on MiN's part. MiN is not the first retailer to offer personalized fragrance sampling and will not be the last. MiN's use of "fragrance flight" dating back to 2010 seems to be a generic use, using "fragrance flight" in the same manner that a wine bar uses "wine flight," and not as a brand. Sephora used Fragrance Flight and Fragrance Flight Bar in connection with its Sensorium exhibit in 2011, without any protest from MiN and without generating any confusion."

It would appear that MiN New York has an uphill battle in proving that its "trademark" is not generic.

Orange County - Germany-based Duff Beer UG has applied to the European Union's general court in Luxembourg for permission to register a European Union trademark for "Duff", Homer Simpson's favorite beer.

The German brewer sells "the legendary Duff Beer" without any mention or logos of the legendary Simpson cartoon character on its website or packaging. Twentieth Century Fox, which produces the longest-running scripted show in television history, The Simpsons, already has two European Union trademarks to the fictional beer. In 1996, News Corp., the owner of Twentieth Century Fox, won a court case in Australia, banning another brewer from selling Duff beer.

Homer Simpson's creator Matt Groening maintains that he will not condone Duff to be used as a real beer brand, citing that he does not want to encourage children to drink beer. However, this has not stopped a number of brewers from trying to use the brand in their attempts to capitalize on the popular cartoon. The 1996 trademark infringement case against Australian beer-maker Lion Nathan resulted in the brewer's infringing products being pulled from store shelves and destroyed.

Brewed in Germany by the Eschweger Klosterbrauerei, Duff Beer UG filed a lawsuit with the European Union's general court in Luxembourg, asking it to overturn a previous decision by the EU trademark agency. That decision had prevented the brewer from registering the "Duff" trademark in black, white, and red, the colors used in the cartoon to depict the label of Homer's choice of the canned beverage.

Duff Beer is also requesting that the European Union court wait for final rulings from a Belgian court case last year that invalidated Twentieth Century Fox's two European trademarks on the grounds that they were misleading since they weren't registered for an actual beverage.

Earlier this year, beer consumers in the United Kingdom were able to pop a cold one in honor of Homer, when Duff Beer made the fictional beer brand into a reality by selling it in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Debuting on Fox in 1989, The Simpsons is an animated satirical parody of working-class America, depicted by the Simpson family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. As the longest-running American sitcom, The Simpsons has won dozens of awards, including 27 Primetime Emmy Awards, 30 Annie Awards, and a Peabody Award. In the animated series, the fictional Duff Beer is Homer's favorite beverage, and is a parody of stereotypical commercial beer: cheaply priced, poor quality, and advertised everywhere.

Orange County - A thirty-six-year-old Delaware man has agreed to change the name of his social networking site for motorcycle enthusiasts after the world-renowned Harley-Davidson accused him of trademark infringement earlier this year.

According to Jimmy Coulbourne, the owner of the biker website HarleySpace.com, will now become IronRides.com to avoid any further conflict with Harley-Davidson. The famous Milwaukee-based motorcycle manufacturer argued that Coulbourne's use of the world "Harley" in his domain name, along with orange and black logos, constituted cybersquatting and trademark infringement. Harley insisted that by using the word Harley in the domain, Coulbourne was attempting to profit from its trademark.

Coulbourne, a one-time owner of a Harley-Davidson SuperGlide, acquired the HarleySpace.com domain two years ago, with the goal of uniting fellow bikers for rides and other social meet-ups.

"They said I was trying to profit off their name," stated Coulbourne. "HarleySpace isn't their name. It's Harley-Davidson. If they think they own HarleySpace, why didn't they own HarleySpace?" Coulbourne went on to say, "Harley is one of my favorite motorcycle brands. The passion that follows that brand is one that I embrace. I just wanted to target that lifestyle."

However, as one of the world's most identifiable brands, among motorcycle riders and non-riders alike, Harley-Davidson isn't taking any chances with its name, which has been around for more than one hundred years. The iconic company has been serious about protecting its intellectual property, especially after taking the brand overseas. The company has numerous registered trademarks associated with the brand, including the word "Harley."

Coulbourne's similar domain name came onto Harley-Davidson's "global brand protection" unit's radar earlier this year after seeing that in just two months, HarleySpace.com had registered over eight hundred user accounts. The site included user forums and a members' map for riders to plot their locations. Despite including a disclaimer that the site was operated independently from the iconic brand, Harley-Davidson was quick to send a cease and desist letter to Coulbourne.

After realizing he didn't have the money to fight a large motorcycle company, Coulbourne gave in and changed the website name.

"I just felt like Harley was shoving their nose up at me," he said. "They wouldn't even talk to me," he added. "I'm a human being, and they wouldn't even pick up the phone to discuss my ideas, my thoughts. Anything."

Orange County - In 2009, Gucci filed a lawsuit against Guess and its licensed footwear brand, Marc Fisher, for infringing on its infamous "G" monogram and other designs. It was originally said that the two powerhouse brands would have a private mediation, however, after three years the case is now a full blown out feud.

There are four designs in particular that Gucci is accusing Guess of infringing. These four designs consist of a green and red stripe pattern that can be found on a Gucci shoe, the interlocking "G" pattern, the square "G", and lastly Gucci's signature script font. The alleged infringed designs appear on Guess products that include shoes, purses, and wallets. Gucci is claiming that Guess has made more than $200 million by selling its 1,495 Guess products that use the infringed designs and Gucci is seeking to claim more than $200 million in damages.

This week, Guess' CEO Paul Marciano was examined by Gucci's trademark attorney in a four-hour examination. While on the stand, Marciano did not admit to any wrongdoing, however, he did acknowledge that the designs in question had some similarities. Ederer told a judge last week that Guess was in a "massive, complicated scheme to knock off Gucci's best-known and iconic designs."

During the case, it was revealed through obtaining Guess' emails that Marc Fisher, the shoe designer, went as far as sending Gucci fabric samples to Guess' fabric suppliers in order to duplicate the patterns of the "G" logo on its shoes. This evidence cannot be good for Guess' case. Gucci's trademark lawyers presented even more ammunition explaining that Marc Fisher Footwear received four cease and desist letters in 2008 from Coach, Adidas, Jimmy Choo, and Yves Saint Laurent accusing Fisher of infringing on designs.

During this week's hearing Marciano admitted to being "inspired" by other designers and stated to Gucci lawyers, "What I understand here, which is very frequent [in fashion], is an inspiration to create an original bag of G's with the same components," and "That's what design is." Just before leaving the courthouse Marciano stated of the accusations, "I truly believe that if this is something Gucci was genuinely concerned with, they would have acted within days, everywhere. Are you telling me today that suddenly you realize what's happened in 1995?"

The case is being estimated to extend through the end of April, however by the looks of it we may be hearing about the "G" feud long after that.

Orange County - Justin.tv, the online video streaming service, has won a partial dismissal in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed against it by Zuffa, LLC for what Zuffa claimed were illegal broadcasts of UFC 121 (Ultimate Fighting Championship, Lesnar vs. Velasquez).

Justin.tv filed the motion to dismiss the claims on the grounds that they "improperly duplicate their copyright claims." While some of the counts of infringement were dismissed altogether, the court ruled that Zuffa is unable to use trademark law to prosecute copyright violations.

In its complaint, Zuffa alleged that UFC was liable for trademark infringement because certain items such as the UFC logos were displayed on the online broadcasts without permission from Zuffa. However, the court did not agree. "Zuffa would possess a mutant-copyright or perpetual copyright because nobody would ever be able to copy the video and display it regardless of whether the copyright had entered the public domain," as stated in court documents.

In addition to getting trademark claims dismissed, Justin.tv was also successful in getting claims of 'stealing cable' thrown out as well. Essentially, Zuffa's claims of stealing cable were not clearly covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Safe Harbor provisions.

The court's decision to dismiss the stealing cable claims were based on its emphasis that it was not Justin.tv itself that was receiving the broadcast, an observation that Zuffa does not argue with. The court did add that while it is Justin.tv's legal responsibility to monitor how third-party users feed in to the broadcast, Zuffa's specific argument to support its charges was inapplicable.

Certain trademark claims in addition to the copyright claims still must be decided by the court. No date has been set as to when the court will make its decision.

Orange County - Whoever is in charge of handling the intellectual property for Pepsi may be feeling some heat for allowing a valuable trademark to lapse. The trademark for the slogan, "The Choice of a New Generation" expired, unnoticed by Pepsi, and gave way for a small oatmeal brand to acquire rights to it.

Better Oats, owned by MOM (previously known as Malt o Meal) jumped at the chance to use the lapsed trademark and has launched a new advertising campaign using the slogan as its own.

"Our Better Oats brand is bringing new, younger and more affluent consumers to the instant oatmeal category, and that trend, coupled with our non-traditional campaign, is why the 'Choice of a New Generation' tagline is such a good fit," stated Better Oats corporate communications manager, Linda Fisher.

It appears that Pepsi allowed the trademark to expire in 2006, three years before MOM Brands first applied to register it in 2009. Interestingly, the CEO of MOM (since 2007) happens to be a former marketer for PepsiCo/Frito Lay. Pepsi used the trademarked slogan between 1984 and 1991 with expensive television commercials featuring mega-stars such as Michael Jackson and Tina Turner, making it all the more confusing as to why it allowed it to expire.

Better Oats, which has a meager 1% share of the oatmeal market, has a much different advertising approach than Pepsi. The company does not retain an advertising agency, but instead uses a crowd sourcing platform called Poptent to get the word out about its brand. The move to acquire rights to the famous slogan can be a good way for the small company to attract publicity for its small brand.

There is a possibility that Pepsi can take legal action against the oatmeal company to get its trademark back. Pepsi could argue that it has residual goodwill and that consumers will still associate the slogan with the soda.

Regardless of whether the cola giant attempts to get its famous trademark back or not, this latest snafu will likely cause it to pay more attention to protecting its intellectual property.

Orange County - Hulu, the subscription-based ad-supported website that streams videos of television shows, movies, and webisodes, has recently joined in a fight to stop Dish Network's registration of the trademark "TV Everywhere."

Co-owned by the Walt Disney Co., News Corp., and NBC Universal, Hulu filed a formal opposition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Appeal Board on February 29, claiming that Dish Network's "TV Everywhere" is merely descriptive and too generic of a term to be a trademark. Hulu also contends that allowing Dish Network to obtain exclusive trademark rights to the term would infringe on its business platforms, namely advertising and subscription-based video-on-demand services.

The platforms for the TV Everywhere service are designed to allow authenticated pay-TV subscribers to access on-demand (and some live) programming 24/7 on multiple consumer electronics devices around the home. Supporters for TV Everywhere, which include Time Warner Cable and Comcast, insist that the new platform is a solution to subscription-based services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.

Colorado-based Dish Network, which owns the flailing Blockbuster LLC, filed a trademark application in 2009 for "TV Everywhere" to cover all areas of television transmission, including Internet-transmitted content, streaming, data transmissions and file sharing across multiple electronic devices on a network. Dish Network is also reportedly attempting to secure trademark rights for a term that is synonymous with the developing technology in home entertainment and how viewers receive their consumer content from television. The satellite TV operator currently markets the Slingbox and SlingPlayer to stream, rather than download, content to mobile and connected devices both in and out of the home.

The TV Everywhere platform has been slow to gain momentum as MVPD service providers like cable television providers, direct-broadcast satellite providers, and wireline video providers struggle with content owners seeking additional revenue for unlimited access.

In an ironic twist to the fight, Hulu co-owners Disney and News Corp. have demanded that content designated for TV Everywhere also be available on Hulu, a concept that is under fire from Time Warner and CBS Corp. CBS is reportedly in opposition to Hulu being an advertisement-supported service, however CBS does support the subscription-based Hulu Plus due to its more lucrative content licensing agreements.

Orange County - The trademark trial and appeal board for the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four trademark applications for the term "CrackBerry," ruling that the trademarks would dilute Research in Motion Ltd.'s "BlackBerry" trademark. The term "CrackBerry" is jokingly used by people to describe their "addictive" BlackBerry smartphones as something they cannot function without.

According to the trademark board's decision passed down on February 27th, Defining Presence Marketing Group had filed four applications to register the "CrackBerry" trademark between December 2006 and May 2007 for different types of goods and services. Specifically, the applications were to use the term in connection with Web-based marketing services, computer services, online chat rooms, and apparel.

Soon after the trademark applications were published for opposition between July and November 2007, Research in Motion (RIM) opposed all four applications on the grounds that use of the "CrackBerry" trademark would cause a likelihood of confusion with the public and also that the trademarks would lead to dilution, which is a weakening of the distinctive quality and reputation behind a trademark.

Defining Presence, which had assigned all four trademarks to Axel Ltd. Co. in September 2007, argued to the TTAB that the registrations should be sustained because the term CrackBerry is simply a parody of BlackBerry and that no likelihood of confusion would exist. However, the administrative trademark judge ruled that RIM's BlackBerry devices were already widely referred to by the term "Crackberry" long before the applicants attempted to register the trademarks, thus further supporting the device-maker's claim that a likelihood of confusion would be created if the term was to be registered as a trademark.

With the exception for the class for apparel, the judge also observed that there was "a close relationship between opposer's registered goods and services and applicant's recited services."

A multinational telecommunications company, Research in Motion is based in Ontario, Canada and designs, manufactures, and markets wireless mobile devices for the global telecommunications market. Its BlackBerry line of smartphone devices was produced in 1999 and are designed to function as personal digital assistants, providing mobile phone services, media capabilities, Internet browsing, gaming, and much more.

Orange County - Swedish appliance-maker Aktiebolaget Electrolux has recently won a trademark infringement lawsuit against three Chinese companies and was awarded 121,000 yuan ($19,209) in damages.

According to the trademark infringement complaint filed last year, Electrolux claimed that the three Chinese companies had illegally produced and sold washing machines and refrigerators using a trademark of "ELEKES," which was quite similar to Electrolux' registered trademarks in China. Some of the infringing products were even reported to have used the Swedish flags and logos such as "High Tech from Sweden," which was clearly a deliberate effort to mislead consumers, according to the complaint.

"This has constituted illicit competition, which is against the Chinese law," stated trademark attorneys for the Stockholm, Sweden-based Electrolux.

Electrolux asked the three Chinese companies to stop infringing its trademarks and demanded compensation of 500,000 yuan. Electrolux also ordered one of the three defendants, Quindao ELEKES Electronic Appliance Co., to immediately change its name, which contained the exact same characters as Electrolux' Chinese brand name.

The Chinese court ruled that the pronunciation of "ELEKES" was very similar to the to the famous brand manufactured by Electrolux, which could be easily mistaken by consumers in the marketplace.

In its prosecution, Electrolux contended that it had established Electrolux China, a fully-owned subsidiary of the Swedish company, in the Chinese mainland in 1995. It also stated that since then it has worked hard to earn a favorable reputation with consumers through its high quality brand products and promotional campaigns.

Electrolux initially started out in the early twentieth century selling Lux-branded vacuum cleaners in several European countries. By 1925, the company had added refrigerators to its product line with other major appliances such as washing machines and dishwashers to follow in the years to come. Electrolux made its initial public offering on the London Stock Exchange in 1928 and another on the Stockholm Stock Exchange in 1930. In recent years, the company has become the world's second-largest home appliance manufacturer by share after Whirlpool.

Some of Electrolux' well-known appliance brands include, Eureka, Frigidaire, Gibson, Tappan, and Westinghouse, just to name a few.

Orange County - Apple's great expansion into China has been marred by a trademark infringement lawsuit brought about by Proview Technology over use of the name "iPad." Most recently, the Shenzhen subsidiary of the Hong-Kong-based company has filed for a permanent injunction to ban Apple from selling its iPads in China altogether.

The Chinese market, known for its rampant intellectual property infringement, is now shamelessly producing a clone to the iPad called iPed. Typically, this type of infringement from the Chinese companies would result in a trademark infringement lawsuit mounted by the U.S. company whose trademark is being infringed. Things have changed now, and unfortunately for Apple, it may potentially be blacklisted from China's growing consumer market.

With its economic landscape rapidly changing, and its middle and upper classes growing, China has created a huge fervor from foreign companies, eager to break into its market. For example, Embraer, a Brazilian private jet manufacturer, recently donated a $30 million private jet to Hong Kong actor Jackie Chan in exchange for his valuable endorsement.

In 2000, Proview Technologies, which provides LED lighting solutions, filed to trademark both the term "iPad" and "IPAD" in China, as its Taiwanese subsidiary had sold its trademark rights for $55,000 to the UK-based rights company, IP Application Development. In September 2010, Apple began selling the iPad tablet in China with the understanding that it had acquired the trademark rights to the "iPad" name from IP Application.

Proview filed its trademark infringement complaint the following year, seeking 240 million Yuan ($38 million USD) in damages from Apple's use of "iPad." Apple responded with a counterclaim, however it was dismissed by a Chinese court. According to the 2011 court ruling in favor of Proview Technologies, although Apple had purchased trademark rights to "iPad" from the UK company, the rights in the contract did not extend to its use in China.

Proview has also filed trademark infringement complaints in two other Chinese cities and is suing several retailers for selling the "iPad" tablet. Unlike high profile litigation in the United States which can go on for years, rulings in Chinese courts are often concluded in a matter of months. Near bankruptcy after its efforts to banish the Apple iPad from China, this verdict couldn't come at a better time for Proview.

Orange County - A European Union high court has ruled that a polish energy drink company cannot register for the Viaguara trademark because it is too similar to that of Viagra, an erectile dysfunction pill manufactured by Pfizer.

The decision from the European Union's General Court was that the similarity would allow Viaguara "to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the trademark Viagra." An energy and alcoholic beverage company from Poland initially applied for the Viaguara trademark in 2005, but was rejected. After appealing to the high court, the trademark was rejected once again.

In addition to its ruling regarding the "unfair advantage" implications, the high court also based its ruling on the potential for medical implications if consumers were to be confused between the two trademarks. Pfizer's Viagra has been trademarked and distributed throughout Europe for years and is well-known to consumers worldwide.

"Even if the non-alcoholic drinks concerned do not actually have the same benefits as a drug to treat erectile dysfunction, the consumer will be inclined to buy them thinking that he will find similar qualities, such as an increase in libido," the court said in its ruling.

Headquartered in Warsaw, Viaguara manufacturers both the alcoholic and non-alcoholic energy drinks using the company's name. The alcoholic beverages are made with a plant, native to Brazil, called guarana. The fruit of the guarana plant reportedly contains twice the amount of caffeine as do coffee beans, which the Polish company claims to have stimulating and fortifying effects on the mind, body, and health. Over the past several years, many health experts have posted warnings about the overuse of guarana because of its high levels of caffeine.

The high court's ruling was welcomed news for Pfizer, which insisted that any similarity between the Viagra trademark and Viaguara energy drinks would be an attempt by the Polish company to benefit from a more established product's "power of attraction, its reputation and prestige, and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by Pfizer."

According to European Union rules, Viaguara has two months to appeal the decision to the Court of Justice on points of law only, which are the applications or interpretations of legal principles or statutes. Regardless of whether the Polish company appeals the high court's decision, it is not likely that it will ever be granted a trademark for Viaguara.

Since its introduction in 1998, Viagra has been prescribed to more than thirty-seven million men all over the world. Viagra's main competitors in the market for impotence drugs are Cialis, manufactured by Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and Levitra, made by Bayer Corporation in Germany and distributed by Glaxo Smith Kline.

Orange County - Xylem Group LLC, a manufacturer of innovative bath and plumbing fixtures, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against ITT and Xylem Inc., a fluid technology spin-off company of ITT.

The lawsuit contends that by naming the spin-off Xylem Inc., ITT is infringing on the Xylem Group's registered trademark and causing confusion among consumers. Xylem Group LLC has owned the registered trademark XYLEM and has been using it in the plumbing marketplace since 2005.

Xylem Group's founder and president Hal Weinstein insists that the blatant infringement is a David vs. Goliath battle, where a large corporate giant (ITT) is using its size and power in the marketplace to intimidate his much smaller business.

"There is a lot of confusion in the marketplace, which is making it difficult for Xylem Group LLC to get its message out," stated Weinstein. "Who we are, what we are, and what we do is being undermined by ITT," he added. Weinstein also said that Xylem Group LLC has been documenting instances where ITT's trademark infringement has adversely affected its business by causing confusion in the marketplace. He said his small company will aggressively proceed with legal action until ITT stops using its trademarked XYLEM name and will also seek monetary damages.

Adding ammunition to Xylem Group's trademark infringement claims, Weinstein cited a November 2011 office action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office that refuses ITT's registration request for the XYLEM trademark on grounds of likelihood of confusion.

In its response to the lawsuit, ITT insists that its use of the XYLEM trademark does not infringe on Weinstein's trademark since they are used for different product lines. Weinstein, however pointed out that ITT has indeed been involved in the "finished goods" side of the plumbing industry through its past ownership of Grohe AG, an international manufacturer and supplier of sanitary fittings. Weinstein further indicated that ITT has published press releases and filed government documents stating its intention to sell water flow devices like pumps, valves, and fittings under the XYLEM name.

Additionally, Weinstein confirmed that the types of companies that Xylem Group LLC uses to distribute its pumps, valves, pipes, and fittings directly compete with ITT in the plumbing industry.

If Xylem Group LLC has deep enough pockets to weather the litigation storm, it appears that it has a very good case. With evidence of the USPTO office action and documentation of marketplace confusion, Weinstein's company has lots of ammunition.

Orange County - Sony Music is reportedly applying for the trademark rights to lyrics in the Indian superhit "Kolaveri Di" so it can possibly use the world-famous "Why this Kolaveri Di" as a brand and to stop others from doing so.

Sony Music Entertainment in India, which recorded the Tamil-English song that has gone viral around the world thanks to YouTube, filed the trademark application last month. The application, filed under Class 9 and Class 41, will allow Sony to launch products such as cassettes, compact discs, and SD cards, as well as film and non-film entertainment content and talent discovery programs branded "Why this Kolaveri Di". By doing so, Sony also eliminates the possibility of any other companies capitalizing on the popular phrase.

The song's first line "Why this kolveri di?" translated to the English language to mean "Why do you have this murderous rage against me?" However disturbing that may sound, the 21-year-old composer Anirudh Ravichander, insists that the song is a "lighthearted" composition about failed love. Apparently, the song is from the soundtrack of the upcoming Indian film "3 Idiots" and since its November release, has become the most searched YouTube video in India.

Amarendra Singh, who heads the client services at the Indian advertising firm Grey Bangalore, said that it would make sense for Sony to release merchandise and a line extension to the song once it becomes a trademarked brand. Singh stated, "They could launch lesser known artists in an album titled Kolaveri 2, and the Kolaveri brand will ensure that the album gets sold out."

The song "Kolveri Di" has become a case study in Indian intellectual property law about how viral marketing on the Internet of a brand, film, or song can create a cult following just days after being released online. The application to trademark the first line lyrics of the song will be the first for India. Although lyrics to a song have never been trademarked in India, advertisement punch lines, quotes, and television commercial jingles have.

It will be interesting to see how Sony decides to use the trademark. As fads come and go in a world where consumers are always looking for something new, plans to develop Kolveri di into a brand may depend on the success of the movie. It was still a logical step for Sony if it does decide to expand it into a brand.

Orange County - Last month, American board game and toymaker Hasbro filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Asus Computer International over use of the word "Transformer" for its new high end tablet/laptop hybrid computer dubbed the "Transformer Prime."

For the past three decades, Hasbro has fascinated children worldwide with its line of alien toy robots called "Transformers." The line of popular toy robots quickly expanded to comic books, an animated television series, and feature films. Now, the Pawtucket, Rhode Island manufacturer is claiming that the defendant's use of its trademark will "undermine the decades of time and millions of dollars" that Hasbro has invested into "Transformers."

Not surprisingly, Asus responded to the trademark infringement complaint with the argument that consumers will not likely be confused between a tablet computer and a child's robot toy. However, Hasbro has a long history of vehemently protecting its intellectual property, with many interesting and often amusing cases to prove it. Last year, the toymaker sent the Senate campaign for Sharon Angle a cease and desist letter because the Nevada Republican never asked permission to use the rights to Monopoly for its "Harry Reid Amnesty Game" website.

As for the Asus Computer case, Hasbro was quick to flex its legal muscles and not only filed its trademark infringement complaint just before Christmas, but also filed a motion for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction motion. Asus, which first displayed its tablet computer at a trade show last January, soon after received a cease and desist letter from Hasbro but then heard nothing for nearly a year. Caught off guard by the lawsuit, Asus trademark attorneys submitted court papers with the intention of slowing down the legal proceedings, which it says were filed abusively by Hasbro during the holiday season so as to thwart a response.

Asus Computer is arguing that Hasbro just filed to register the "Transformers Prime" trademark in April 2010, which the United States Patent and Trademark Office has yet to grant. Asus added that the toy manufacturer has yet to sell any merchandise under the unregistered trademark, which according to Hasbro will take place this March when the toys are completed.

Although being able to prove the likelihood of confusion argument will be challenging, Hasbro did cite some tech bloggers who used the launch of the new tablet computer as a reason to nostalgically reminisce about their childhood days of playing with Transformer robots. Asus will likely argue that its use of "transformer" is purely descriptive. After last year's cease and desist letter, the computer company responded by telling Hasbro that the trademark didn't cover Asus' use of the word to demonstrate to consumers the functions of its tablet.