Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog : Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

     Rockville, MD-based Yogiberry, Inc., filed an application for registration of the mark YOGIBERRY in the U.S. Trademark Office on March 11, 2008, which was approved for publication and subsequently published for opposition on September 2, 2008.  On November 21, 2008, Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., owner of several marks related to the Yogi Bear franchise of cartoons that first appeared on television in 1958, filed an opposition.  In its answer to the opposition, Yogiberry stated that its mark is related to retail frozen yogurt stores, and does not overlap with any goods and services associated with Hanna-Barbera's YOGI BEAR MARKS.  Yogiberry further stated that the parties' respective marks are not confusingly similar or likely to cause confusion amongst consumers or the trade.

     Yogiberry, Inc., is the owner of Registration No. 3498624 for the mark shown below, which was registered on September 9, 2008, based on an application filed February 4, 2008:

     In view of the above opposition, Yogiberry, Inc., and Pinkberry, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland a stipulated motion to a stay their pending trademark litigation.  The parties' motion was granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     In Grand Canyon West Ranch v. Hualapai Tribe, TTAB No. 91162008 (June 30, 2008), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that an applicant, not registrant, committed fraud on the Trademark Office when it represented to the Office that it provided services in association with its mark GRAND CANYON WEST that, in fact, it did not offer. 

     Applicant Hualapai Tribe ("People of the Tall Pine"), whose tribal lands border the Colorado River and Grand Canyon in the western portion of the Canyon, filed an application for the mark GRAND CANYON WEST for a variety of services under Section 1(a), App. Ser. No. 76484111. The examiner prosecuting the application issued an office action requesting further clarification as to the services associated with the mark. The applicant responded in kind, stating that it provided, among other services, horseback rides, bicycle tours, and tractor-based tram rides. During the publication phase, the mark was opposed by Grand Canyon West Ranch, which argued that the mark was merely descriptive, and that the applicant had committed fraud on the PTO by including services in the application that they were not, in fact, offering under the mark.

     The Board found that the mark was not merely descriptive. However, it agreed with Ranch's fraud argument. Specifically, the Board found that there was no evidence that applicant provided horseback rides, bicycle tours, or tractor-based tram rides, as identified in the application. The applicant argued that the error was inadvertent, that it was due to innocent and reasonable reliance on the examiner's instructions to applicant suggesting appropriate services. The Board said that it could not excuse the error. The applicant, it wrote, had an affirmative duty to correct the identification set forth in the examiner's amendment if it contained errors. 

      Acknowledgment: information for this post provided by Alain Lapter, Esq.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Nacre AS v. Silynx Communications, Inc., No. 07-cv-02676, filed Oct. 2, 2007.

     Update:  Rockville, MD-based Silynx Communications and Norway's Nacre AS have been facing off on all fronts in their battle to gain control of the U.S. military tactical hearing protection and communications headset market, including the intellectual property front. In September 2007, Nacre, which owns the QUIETPRO trademark, filed a trademark opposition proceeding against Silynx's QUIETOPS mark before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. That proceeding was stayed when, in October 2007, Nacre filed a trademark and patent infringement lawsuit against Silynx in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which is pending (additional counsel for Nacre just recently motioned for pro hac admission to the Maryland court). In January 2008, Silynx lost its protest of an award from the Dept. of the Navy to Nacre to acquire a quantity of combat radio headsets from the company.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

No sooner had I posted on this blog that the Senate had not voted a patent reform bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Committee, like the House Judiciary Committee a few days earlier, produced its own version of patent reform legislation for the full Senate to consider.  Based on a statement by Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate bill would:

• Reduce the incentives for patent litigation by making it harder for patent owners to show that another company has willfully infringed its patents (and consequently making it harder to receive an award of treble damages and possibly attorney’s fees);
  
  
• Establish regulatory procedures for re-evaluating patents after they are granted;
  
  
• Include limitations on the availability of jurisdictions where patent holders can file lawsuits by requiring suits to be filed where the plaintiffs or defendants are located, where the alleged infringement took place, or where the parties were incorporated or formed (this limitation could affect the number of filings in popular forums like the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas, which in 2006 surpassed the Central District of California as the hot-bed of patent litigation in the U.S., according to statistics provided by The Patent Troll Tracker).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link