Orange County Trademark Attorney® Blog

Recently in Application Category

Google Runs into Trouble in Attempt to Secure Trademark Protection for "Glass"

April 16, 2014,

Glass-google.jpgOrange County - There has been no smooth sailing so far for Google in its push to get the word "Glass" registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as a federally protected trademark. While the company obtained registration relatively easily for "Google Glass" in connection with its much anticipated wearable technology device, the road to registration for its newest application has been much more obstructive.

For "Google Glass", the USPTO asked only that Google amend its description of goods and change the Class that it originally filed in before the application could proceed toward registration. For "Glass," the Examining Attorney dealt a much more serious blow, citing a likelihood of confusion with six prior registered trademarks and a potential likelihood of confusion with seven prior filed applications. Beyond that, the Examiner set forth an argument that the word "Glass" is merely descriptive of the goods for which Google is seeking protection namely, "Computer hardware; computer peripherals; wearable computer peripherals; peripherals for mobile devices; wearable peripherals for mobile devices; computer hardware for remotely accessing and transmitting data; computer peripherals for remotely accessing and transmitting data; peripherals for mobile devices for remotely accessing and transmitting data; computer hardware for displaying data and video; computer peripherals for displaying data and video; peripherals for mobile devices for displaying data and video; computer software." The Examiner found that the word "Glass" would be taken by consumers to describe some feature of the goods, specifically that they contain glass lenses or glass parts, and thereby denied registration.

In its response, filed in March, trademark lawyers for Google countered with a lengthy argument that Google Glass is so well known that consumers will not be confused between it and the other cited applications and registrations. The response also argues that since buyers of Google Glass are sophisticated purchasers, they know exactly what they want and will not be confused between the Google product and other products. Though the USPTO has yet to issue any action in regard to Google's response to the refusal, this is sure to be an interesting back and forth between one of the country's best known technology companies and the USPTO.

As for Google Glass itself, the new device made a limited launch among "explorers" on April 15. With a variety of designs and styles soon-to-be available, from sunglasses to cat-eye frames, Google is grappling for a wide consumer base, encouraging buyers to "make Glass your own", by ensuring that the product fits a wide variety of lifestyle and design preferences.

Ford and Tesla Clash Over "Model E" Trademark

January 10, 2014,

ford.jpgOrange County - Two of the world's most well known car manufacturers are going head to head over the trademark right to the name "Model E." Records on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) show that on August 5, 2013, Tesla Motors, Inc. filed a trademark application for "Model E," in several classes of goods, including that for " Automobiles and structural parts therefor." This was enough to sufficiently stir up Ford's attorneys and Ford, in turn, filed its own application for the same name on December 3, 2013.

While Ford never actually made a Model E automobile, they may have a viable claim to a historical right in the name, due to its classic formula of naming cars "Model" with a single letter following. Ford historically rolled out the Model T in 1908, which was the first car to ever be produced for the masses by assembly line. Besides the most famous Model T, Ford also produced the Models A, B, C, F, K, N, R, S, T and Y between the years 1903 and 1938.

Oddly enough, while Ford never officially used the "Model E" moniker as a name for an automobile, Tesla also has yet to formally announce that it will be using the name. The public has been awaiting the unveiling of the new Tesla model to follow the widely popular Tesla Model S. With relatively little information about the upcoming model, car enthusiasts and bloggers simply started referring to the yet-to-be seen Tesla as the "Model E". The name caught on and so did Tesla, which despite filing several trademark applications for the "Model E," have yet to announce that the next addition to the Tesla lineup will indeed bear the moniker.

The upcoming Tesla "Model E" is speculated to be a much more affordable version of the successful Model S, set to compete with the BMW 3-series and Mercedes C-Class, at a price of about $35,000. The much anticipated "Model E-veryone", as some have begun calling it, will be the fourth production car by the California-based car company. Whether or not Tesla is able to win out the fight against Ford for the "Model E" trademark, it appears that Tesla enthusiasts will be ready to buy it when it finally arrives.

Auburn Coach Seeks Trademark Protection For "Hurry Up No Huddle"

November 26, 2013,

football.jpgOrange County - A trademark application filed on November 13th with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reveals Auburn University football's head coach's intent to trademark his signature approach, "Hurry Up No Huddle". The application was filed through the Auburn Tigers' head coach Gus Malzahn's limited liability company and seeks protection over the phrase, which refers to Malzahn's well known up-tempo style of play.

According to filing documents, Malzahn applied for protection in two separate classes, specifically in those covering clothing and glassware. Though his trademark lawyers filed the application based on an "intent to use" the phrase in connection with the goods, shirts displaying the phrase are already being sold in stores and online. A quick web search shows that J&M Bookstore, a retail outpost which has been "serving Auburn students, alumni and fans for over 58 years," is offering the shirts for $17.99. The t-shirts show the phrase "Hurry Up No Huddle" underneath the Auburn University logo and on the back are the words, "Quit Your Whining (You Get 3 Time-Outs)."

The "Hurry Up No Huddle" offensive style has long been associated with Malzahn , even years before he took his post as the Auburn University Tigers' head coach earlier in 2013. In 2003, while he was a coach at Springdale High School in Arkansas, he published his book entitled, " The Hurry-Up, No-Huddle: An Offensive Philosophy." According to the book, Coach Malzahn officially began incorporating the hurry-up, no-huddle philosophy into his offense during his time at Shiloh Christian High School beginning in 1997. During his time at Shiloh, his teams averaged approximately 7,000 yards per season using his quick offensive style. After taking that team to two state championships, he went on to do the same at Springdale High School, before becoming the Offensive Coordinator at the University of Arkansas.

The Auburn Tigers currently rank number four in offense in college football, with much of the program's success being attributed to the "Hurry Up No Huddle" mentality. The team is second in rushing yards this season and has an impressive 10-1 record. Given the sensation of his signature style and how integral it has been to the success of all of his football teams, the potential for "Hurry Up No Huddle" as a brand is obviously something that the famed coach has picked up on. While the USPTO has yet to issue any disposition with regard to the application, it will be interesting to see how this filing fares in the now commonplace trend of athletes and coaches trademarking their namesake nicknames, slogans, and styles. The Hurry Up No Huddle may have its ultimate test coming up this weekend as Auburn plays the top ranked Alabama Crimson Tide in the Iron Bowl.

Cardinals' Rally Squirrel Stirs up Trademark Fight

October 30, 2013,

squirrel.jpgOrange County - The St. Louis Cardinals are in the midst of a dispute over the trademark of its popular "Rally Squirrel." The team is trying to knock out a federal trademark application filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by a St. Louis area business owner named Phil Rideout. Rideout claims that he filed the application with the intent of building a sports brand around the name, but the Cardinals have opposed the filing, claiming that the name has become a fundamental part of the ball club's identity.

Back in 2011, when the Rally Squirrel was at the peak of its popularity, Rideout was one of many local businesspeople who cashed in on the frenzy, manufacturing and selling squirrel themed merchandised to Cardinals fans. At the same time, the St. Louis Cardinals themselves created and sold Rally Squirrel T-shirts and provided fans with squirrel rally towels at games.

Though its opposition is still lingering with the USPTO, the Cardinals have shown no sign of giving up, with one its representatives recently commenting that the "Cardinals Rally Squirrel is alive and well." The parties are currently trying to work out a settlement, but the fight seems stalemated for the time being, with Rideout claiming that he was the first user of the term and the Cardinals countering that he is attempting to unjustly profit from the goodwill of the team and its association with the furry creature.

The now famous rally squirrel first appeared back in 2011, during that year's National League Division Series between the Phillies and the Cardinals. During game three of the series, the squirrel popped out in the outfield and interrupted play as it darted across the field. In game four, the squirrel appeared again and caused a distraction among players, before leaping into the stands.

From that point on, the tiny rodent was dubbed the "Rally Squirrel" and became the unofficial mascot of the St. Louis Cardinals, receiving much media attention by players, commentators and fans alike. The Cards ended up winning the world series that year and the Rally Squirrel has remained a fan favorite ever since, with his own Twitter account, T-shirts and merchandise. He is even featured as a life-sized mascot on the field at Busch Stadium alongside Fredbird, the cardinal bird mascot.

Truce between Apple and Amazon over Trademark for "App Store"

July 11, 2013,

apple-store.jpgOrange County - A judge in Northern California Federal Court on Tuesday dismissed a case between technology giants Apple, Inc. and, Inc. over trademark infringement claims after the two sides reached a settlement agreement.

The conflict stems from Amazon's use of the term "appstore" in its marketplace of programs for use witg Google's Android cell phones and Amazon's Kindle Fire. Amazon originally used "Amazon Appstore for Android," to refer to its online store, but upon introduction of the Kindle Fire, Amazon dropped use of "for Android." This switch prompted Apple to take legal action.

Apple originally filed its complaint in 2011, alleging that it had the exclusive right to the term APP STORE.

Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., first filed a trademark application for APP STORE in July 2008, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office approved in 2010. Microsoft Corp. then filed an opposition to the application, so registration of the trademark is still pending based on the outcome of the civil trial between Apple and Microsoft.

Apple argued that it originally coined the term "app store" in relation to its innovative online store for applications to download onto iPhones, iPads, and iPods that it introduced in 2008. Since then, Apple's competitors, such as Amazon, have introduced similar marketplaces for application downloads. Apple asserted in its complaint that Amazon's use of "appstore" constituted false advertising, leading consumers to believe that Amazon's virtual store was associated with its own.

Seattle-based Amazon asserted in response to the complaint that the term "app store" had become generic, and that it was frequently used by business participating in the app store marketplace. The company further argued that consumers understood the differences between the app stores for different platforms, and would not be confused by Amazon's use of "appstore."

U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the two parties to begin mediation earlier this year. The two sides reached an agreement on June 28, as Apple agreed to a covenant not to sue Amazon over this matter. Judge Hamilton dismissed the case on July 9, citing the agreement between the two corporations.

The case was originally scheduled to begin trial next month.

Kraft's Use of TOPPERS Alleged to be Trademark Infringement

June 17, 2013,

Cheese.jpgOrange County - A fierce battle is underway between the nation's top cheese producers over the rights to the term 'Toppers'. Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. holds the U.S. Trademark for 'Toppers' and the company claims that Kraft Food Group, Inc. infringed on its trademark by using the same term in its product description.

Saputo, a U.S. subsidiary of the Canadian company by the same name, filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against the snack food giant on June 7th. Saputo claims it has used the term TOPPERS continuously since 1996, and has held U.S. Trademark Registration Number 2,330,529 since 2000.

The alleged infringement began in late 2012, when Kraft introduced its Velveeta brand 'Toppers', which are microwaveable pouches of Velveeta cheese product. The new product is designed for use as a single-serve nacho cheese dip and comes in two varieties, Queso Blanco and Original.

The use of 'Toppers' by Velveeta, an Illinois-based corporation owned by Kraft, is particularly damaging, claims Saputo. The company claims that it has developed a reputation for quality cheeses under its TOPPERS label, and argues that the term's use by Velveeta will cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the brand.

Saputo has utilized its 'Toppers' trademark in its Stella Toppers cheese brand, described as Artisan-Style Toppings, with products including Fresh Mozzarella, Parmesan, and Blue Cheese. The company fears that if customers believe the Velveeta 'Toppers' product is associated with the Stella Toppers cheese, it will damage the reputation of Saputo Cheese.

Lawyers for Saputo sent a cease-and-desist letter to Kraft on May 23rd, demanding that the company immediately stop all use of the term 'Toppers'. Kraft's counsel stated in its email response on May 31st that it would investigate the matter. To date, the company has not stopped use of the trademark that Saputo claims is infringing.

In its lawsuit against Kraft, Saputo cites trademark infringement as well as false advertising, unfair competition, and violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act under Illinois law. The company is also seeking damages, including injunctive and monetary relief.

The Rush of "Boston Strong" Trademark Applications Has Begun

April 30, 2013,

registered R.jpgOrange County - In the aftermath of the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon attack, no less than 8 separate trademark applications containing the words "Boston Strong" have been filed with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The phrase became a popular credo for Bostonians who gathered to show support for one another during a difficult time.

Two of these applications, Serial No. 85,906,569 filed by Born Into It, Inc. for "clothing and accessories" and Serial No. 85,906,495 filed by an Allston, Massachusetts individual for "Imprinting messages on wearing apparel, accessories and mugs" were filed as quickly as two days after the tragedy. The Allston Massachusetts individual has already expressly abandoned that application. Then, on April 20, 2013, three additional applications were filed by individuals in Oxford, Connecticut, New Port Richey, Florida and Brockton, Massachusetts all for apparel items. On April 22, 2013 two more applications were filed and there could be more because it takes about a week for the applications to show up online.

The bad news for those filing a BOSTON STRONG application after April 18th is that the Born Into It Application filed on April 17th will stand in the way of registration. So, that will likely knock out all but one Application filed for BOSTON STRONG COFFEE.

Another problem the applicants face is that the BOSTON STRONG phrase has recently come into widespread usage, so it will likely be very difficult to enforce trademark rights even if the trademark registered. Beyond these issues, most of the applications were filed on an intent to use basis and the applicants likely do not realize that merely printing words on a t-shirt or hat is not considered trademark use by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Instead, a trademark must act as a source identifier, so to be accepted as a specimen of use the trademark must be used on a label or hang tag.

A final issue is that most people will view the rush to register the trademark as in bad taste. The public view of any efforts to enforce rights to the BOSTON STRONG trademark by way of a cease and desist letter or by litigation would likely be viewed in an even dimmer light.

While it is not uncommon for individuals to rush out to file trademark applications involving the newest fad or latest news, as most if not all of these applicants will soon realize it is rarely a good idea.

Drug Maker Cannot Trademark Peppermint Flavor and Scent

March 6, 2013,

peppermint.jpgOrange County - Drug producer Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG cannot trademark the peppermint scent and flavor of a nitroglycerin spray sold to help treat chest pain, according to a recent decision by the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

The TTAB ruled that the taste and smell of peppermint in the Nitrolingual Pumpspray is functional because the peppermint oil makes the spray more effective at treating chest pain due to angina and therefore it cannot be registered as a trademark. The board also ruled that the flavor and smell were not distinct enough to warrant trademark protection.

Pohl-Boskamp filed a trademark application for the peppermint scent and flavor of the Nitrolingual Pumpspray in 2010. The liquid is sprayed under the tongue and is used to help provide relief from an attack of angina pectoris, a form of chest pain brought on when the heart does not get the blood and oxygen it needs because of coronary heart disease.

The board pointed out that the Trademark Act does not bar scents and flavors from being trademarked, as the law describes a trademark as a "word, symbol or device" used to distinguish goods or services. However, the board said that Pohl-Boskamp did not prove that the scent and flavor of the Nitrolingual Pumpspray is deserving of a trademark.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board pointed to a patent owned by another company that indicates peppermint oil reduces side effects of nitroglycerin by increasing the rate at which it is absorbed into the bloodstream. This makes the peppermint functional and therefore not protectable by trademark. In other words, allowing the trademark to register would give Pohl-Boskamp a competitive advantage. "Competitors would either have to forgo using peppermint oil or find a way to mask the taste of the peppermint oil, if that were even possible," the board ruled.

The board also pointed out that Pohl-Boskamp's argument that the peppermint smell was "substantially exclusive" to its product was groundless, as the board found competing products with the same scent. The board ruled that since there are several competing products with a similar scent and flavor, consumers would perceive those characteristics as physical attributes of the product, not as indicators of the origin of the product.

"To allow applicant the exclusive right to market nitroglycerine formulations having the flavor of peppermint oil would impermissibly prevent the future use of therapeutic peppermint oil by others in applicant's field," the board concluded.

Johnny Manziel Fights to Trademark his Popular Nickname

November 20, 2012,

football.jpgOrange County - Texas A&M and the Manziel family are working to trademark quarterback Johnny Manziel's nickname "Johnny Football," but someone else has already claimed it.

The freshman quarterback has the 9th ranked Aggies at 9-2, thanks to the 21 touchdowns he has thrown and the 17 he has rushed for this season. His popularity hit an all-time high recently when he led the Aggies to a 29-24 victory over the then No. 1 ranked Alabama two weeks ago.

Texas A&M is not interested in obtaining the trademark to make money, but rather to prevent anyone else from using it. In order to protect Manziel's eligibility as an armature player, the NCAA forbids Texas A&M and the family from profiting from any merchandise that can be linked to Manziel. The NCAA also expects the university to prevent other vendors from profiting from merchandise associated with amateur players.

Preventing vendors from profiting from the trademark could prove difficult. Texas A&M discovered that Kenneth R. Reynolds Family Investments, located in College Station, Texas, applied for the "Johnny Football" trademark to use on athletic wear, footballs, and video games on the first of this month. The attorney of record did not return calls seeking comment on the application, but it appears he is not working with the university or the Manziel family.

Even if Texas A&M and the Manziel family are able to get the trademark from Kenneth R. Reynolds Family Investments, they will not be able to use the trademark in commerce for more than three years while Manziel is still playing college football, meaning it will be expensive to protect the trademark without being able to profit from it.

Though they are forbidden from selling merchandise with "Johnny Football," Texas A&M has found another way to capitalize on Manziel's popularity. They have begun selling "No. 2" jerseys in addition to the "No.1" and "No.12" jerseys they normally sell that are not associated with any specific players. And as the season progresses, the school is having a hard time keeping the "No.2" jerseys on the shelves.

UK Court Upholds Cadbury Purple Packaging Trademark Protection

October 2, 2012,

candy-easter-cadbury.jpgOrange County - A United Kingdom court ruled on Monday that venerable candy maker Cadbury PLC is entitled to trademark protection for its signature purple wrapping on its milk chocolate bars, in response to a challenge from Nestle, according to news reports.

Judge Colin Birss of the High Court of Justice reportedly ruled that the Pantone 2865C shade of purple has become distinctively identified with Cadbury's Dairy Milk bars, which Cadbury has packaged in the color since 1914, the New Statesman reported Tuesday.
The judge refused to allow trademark protection for the shade in relation to different types of chocolate, or boxes of chocolate, narrowing Cadbury's desired range of goods for the trademark to milk chocolate and chocolate drinks.

Nestle Inc. originally opposed Cadbury's application for a trademark for purple in relation to chocolate in 2008, arguing that the color is not distinctive enough, covered too wide a range of goods and was applied for in bad faith on Cadbury's part, according to the New Statesman.

Cadbury first applied for the trademark in 2004 in relation to chocolate in bar and tablet form, chocolate confectionery, chocolate assortments, cocoa-based beverages, chocolate-based beverages, preparations for chocolate-based beverages and chocolate cakes. The application was accepted and published in 2008, but could not be officially registered at that time due to Nestle's challenge.

In November the U.K. Intellectual Property Office ruled that the shade held enough distinctive character to merit a trademark.

Cadbury made Kraft Foods Inc. the world's largest producer of chocolate when Kraft bought the company in 2010.

"We welcome the decision of the High Court which allows us to register as a trademark and protect our famous color purple across a range of milk chocolate products," a Cadbury spokesman told Design Week. "Our color purple has been linked with Cadbury for more than a century and the British public have grown up understanding its link with our chocolate."

Nestle, for its part, told Confectionery News that the court's decision represents only a partial victory for Cadbury, as it significantly narrowed the scope of the trademark.

PTO Shuts Down Science Center's Trademark Appeal

September 19, 2012,

registered R.jpgOrange County -- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denied Columbus, Ohio's Center of Science and Industry's attempt to trademark its name earlier in September, ruling that the trademark was merely descriptive and not distinctive enough.

The Franklin County Historical Society sought registration of the trademark "Center of Science and Industry" in standard character format to cover education and entertainment services, namely, operating a museum and conducting workshops, programs and demonstrations in the field of science.

The trademark examining attorney refused registration of the trademark on the grounds that the trademark is merely descriptive of the identified services and has not acquired distinctiveness. The historical society argued against the first refusal, and sought registration with a claim of acquired distinctiveness in the alternative.

The examining attorney submitted dictionary definitions of the separate words "center," "science" and "industry," which the TTAB found to be probative of the relevant public's understanding of the term "Center of Science and Industry" as applied to the historical society's recited services.

"It would not take any complicated reasoning or cogitation for consumers considering the proposed mark in conjunction with the recital of services to conclude that the proposed mark conveys information about a center where one can learn about science and industry," the board said.

The examining attorney also submitted evidence of third parties that use variations on the center's name for museum services.

The dictionary evidence shows the proposed trademark to be a descriptive one, and the use by third parties on their websites further shows that there is a competitive need for the terms "center," "science," and "industry" in connection with the services the historical society sought to register the trademark for, according to the TTAB.

The historical society argued that in addition to over 35 years of "substantially exclusive" use, its Center of Science and Industry has garnered attention by receiving, over the years, 20 million visitors from all 50 states. It features regular and special exhibits with "rare artifacts," and has been awarded national awards and recognition, including the Parents Magazine award of "#1 Science Center" in the country, according to the historical society.

If any term concerning the center has gained a degree of renown, though, it is the acronym COSI, according to the examining attorney. He pointed out that none of the examples the historical society provided show the trademark phrase appearing unaccompanied by the acronym.

"Although applicant's museum services may attract many visitors and indeed it may have national recognition with multiple awards, it has not established acquired distinctiveness specific to the term "'Center of Science and Industry,'" the TTAB ruled.

John Geils Jr. Sues His Own Band For Trademark Infringement

August 15, 2012,

concert.jpgOrange County - Historically, the music business is a prime industry for trademark infringement lawsuits. For bands that sell tickets and make money based on the recognition and popularity of a band name, the ownership of that name can prove to be invaluable. And when bands or individual band members use a name without authorization, lawsuits usually follow. Such is the case with John Geils Jr. who has sued the other members of his band which is named after him. Geils Jr. announced through representatives that he has filed a complaint against The J. Geils Band for trademark infringement and deceptive business practices after the band decided to tour without him.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Boston and claims that Geils owns the J. Geils Band trademark. The defendants, Peter Wolf, Seth Justman, Magic Dick and Danny Klein are accused of "seeking to misappropriate and steal" the band name that has been in use since the 1960's. Apparently ownership of the band's copyrights are not in issue. The J. Geils Band is famous for its 1980's hits "Centerfold" and "Freeze Frame". Following a resurgence of 1980's music, many bands from the eighties have found a renewed popularity in recent years and have started touring again. With plans to start touring this year, the band began to argue about who actually owned the trademark rights to the band's name.

The Boston Globe reported that Geils was granted the trademark rights to the band name in 2009. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a registrant company named Francesca owns the rights to the band name for use with records, musical sound recordings, downloadable musical sound recordings, audiovisual recordings featuring music and musical entertainment, downloadable audiovisual recordings featuring music and musical entertainment, clothing, shirts, t-shirts, entertainment services, and periodic live musical performances. However, the band claims that Geils registered the trademark without consulting the other band members. A separate trademark application was filed for The J. Geils Band this year by T&A Research & Development Corp but it recently received an Office Action due to the prior registration and very likely will not register.

Anheuser-Busch Files Trademark Applications for Airport Codes

June 18, 2012,

beer-bottle-pouring.jpgOrange County - What do airport codes have to do with selling beer? To the confusion of many, Anheuser-Busch trademark attorneys filed paper work last week with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark over forty different airport codes. The Applications for the famous beer distributor included the three-letter airport codes for airports in San Francisco (SFO), Los Angeles (LAX) and Boston (BOS), and many others.

Three letter airport codes, such as the ones Anheuser-Busch is attempting to trademark, are used worldwide and are also called "International Air Transport Association (IATA) Location Identifiers". The practice of universally using the three-letter airport codes started in the 1930's, when airline service exploded and towns without weather station codes needed identification. To solve this problem, the three-letter system was born. Since then, it has become much more convenient for pilots, controllers, travel agents, frequent flyers, computers and baggage handlers to say and write ORD than the O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois.

Experts are not certain of the exact plans behind the trademark filings for so many airport codes, but it would appear that the brewer intends to create dozens of brands geared toward local consumers. Anheuser-Busch now has six months to submit a Statement of Use for each of the airport codes. Earlier this year, Anheuser-Busch also filed Trademark Applications with the USPTO to trademark "314" and thirteen other city area codes. The government filing fee for each Application at least $275, so between the filing fees for the airport codes and those for the area codes, Anheuser-Busch has spent roughly $18,000 dollars.

Anheuser-Busch is the leading American beer retailer with a whopping 48.3 percent of sales in the United States. Its most popular selling beers, Budweiser and Bud Light, are also the top selling beers in the U.S. and are distributed through a massive network of over 500 independent wholesalers. Based in St. Louis, Missouri, Anheuser-Busch operates twelve breweries across the United States and prides itself in also being the top recycler of Aluminum for over 30 years.

Jeremy Lin To Be Sole Owner of 'Linsanity' Trademark

June 4, 2012,

basketball.jpgOrange County - The various individuals who filed 'Linsanity' trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office back in February 2012 will be narrowed down to one remaining applicant. Jeremy Lin's trademark application for 'Linsanity' will be the only one granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Although many applications still show a 'live' status, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued office actions which state the reason for the refusals to anyone other than Jeremy Lin. An office action in one of the 'Linsanity' applications states, "Registration is refused because the applied-for trademark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with Jeremy Lin. Although Jeremy Lin is not connected with the goods provided by applicant under the applied-for trademark, the term LINSANITY has been so widely used in connection with Jeremy Lin that consumers would presume a connection to Mr. Lin if they see the term LINSANITY on the identified goods."

The popularity associated with New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin in February 2012 caused the frenzy that became known as 'Linsanity'. The Knicks guard went from being a bench player to ultimately saving the game on February 4, 2012 against the New Jersey Nets and contributed 25 points that resulted in a win for the Knicks. After this game several applicants filed applications to trademark the term 'Linsanity'. Jeremy Lin soon followed and is listed as the owner in the live trademark applications for 'Jeremy Lin', 'Linsanity', and 'JLin'.

Pamela Deese, Lin's trademark attorney stated of the U.S. Patent and Trademark's decision, "We're delighted" and "This is the right result." "It's not only Linsanity, but all Lin-related trademarks. Having a clean slate with rights in place makes it a lot easier to negotiate licenses and endorsements deals."

Lin, the first Taiwanese American to play in the National Basketball Association, has recently taken a medical leave hiatus from the NBA due to a tear in his left meniscus. Despite the recovery time from his knee injury, Lin is said to still be a part of the New York Knicks team even though his future with the Knicks has recently been questioned since Lin is a restricted free agent. Glen Grunwald, the General Manager for the New York Knicks, stated of the 23 year old, "We can keep him if we want him, and we do want to keep him, and I believe that Jeremy had a great experience here. I believe he wants to come back."

Either way, we can be sure that there will be more "Linsanity" in the future.

GM Files For "Riviera" Trademark: Will We See a Comeback?

May 14, 2012,

automobile.jpgOrange 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.