Orange County Trademark Attorney - Orange County Trademark Lawyer

Orange 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.

Orange County - Bausch & Lomb Inc., well-known optical innovators since the early 1900's, recently filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of a trademark in a lawsuit in which Bausch & Lomb was sued for trademark infringement. The trademark at issue is "See better Live Better".

The Plaintiff in the lawsuit is Stuart J. Kaufman, M.D., a Florida Ophthalmologist who owns SEE BETTER LIVE BETTER U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,917,064 for physician services in the field of ophthalmology. Mr. Kaufman is seeking injunctive relief as well as damages from Bausch & Lomb's use of the phrase "See better. Live better" in advertising and on its web site.

The original complaint against Bausch & Lomb was filed in February. In response to being sued, Bausch & Lomb decided to file the counterclaim against Dr. Kaufman asserting that SEE BETTER LIVE BETTER is a generic term in the industry of eye care and therefore the trademark should be cancelled by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. In the counterclaim, Bausch & Lomb states that many others in the eye care industry are using the slogan or similar slogans and therefore "No one party should have exclusive rights to this popular phrase." In its counterclaim Bausch & Lomb states that "See Better Live Better is generic for eye services that help people see better so that they can live better."

While it may be a stretch to say that the trademark is inherently generic, Bauch & Lomb can still be successful in cancelling the trademark if it can prove that it is in widespread use. Examples of trademarks that became generic over time are ASPIRIN and CELLOPHANE. To support its claim that the trademark has become generic, the counterclaim lists many other uses of the trademark including uses by ophthalmologists that allegedly used the slogan prior to Mr. Kaufman. This is somewhat of a position pill argument in that Bausch & Lomb is arguing that it also is not entitled to trademark protection in the slogan. Considering this, it may be advisable for Bausch & Lomb to cease use of the phrase regardless of the merits of the claim.

Dr. Kaufman is accusing Bausch & Lomb of "reverse confusion." In other words, he is alleging that the public will believe that Bausch & Lomb is the true owner of the trademark which will lead the public to believe that Mr. Kaufman is the infringer rather than Bausch & Lomb.

Orange 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.

Orange 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.

Orange 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.

Orange 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.

Orange 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.

Orange 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.

Orange 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.

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 - 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.