Hanna-Barbera Productions Opposes Registration of Yogiberry Trademark

     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.

Federal Trademark Trends in Maryland: 2008 Summary

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that in 2008, the PTO received 68 trademark applications from Maryland resident or entities (based on a search of "owner address" records using Trademark Electronic Search System, TESS, database). That number is a 20% decline in the number of applications received in 2007 (85), and a 22% decline over 2006 numbers (87).


 


 

     The number of registrations to Maryland individuals or entities in 2008 was also down compared to last year. According to the PTO, 53 registrations were effective in 2008 (as of December 31, 2008), which is a 36% decline in the number of registrations in 2007 (83 registrations), but is one more than the number of registrations in 2006 (52).

Federal Trademark Trends in Maryland: First Half 2008

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the period January through June 2008, the PTO received 28 trademark applications from Maryland resident or entities (based on a search of "owner address" records using TESS). That number is a 55% decline in the number of applications received for the same period in 2007 (62), but only a 3% decline over 2006 numbers (29).

     The number of registrations to Maryland individuals or entities in the first half of 2008 was down compared to last year. According to the PTO, 23 registrations were effective during the period January through June 2008, which is a 4% decline in the number of registrations for the same period in 2007 (24 registrations), but is the same number of registrations in 2006 (23).

Copyright Office Announces Electronic Registration

     Last September, the Copyright Office issued an announcement that it had begun beta testing of its web-based registration system, which was part of a new "electronic Copyright Office" (eCO) program (see Copyright Office Announces Electronic Registration Testing). Beginning July 1, 2008, the Copyright Office will offer its online registration system to the public.  Instruction for making claims to copyrighted works may be found here.

     According to a recent Copyright Office announcement, online registration through the eCO is the preferred way to register basic claims for literary works; visual arts works; performing arts works, including motion pictures; sound recordings; and single serials. Advantages of online filing include a lower filing fee; the fastest processing time; online status tracking of your claim; secure payment by credit or debit card, electronic check, or Copyright Office deposit account; and the ability to upload certain categories of deposits directly into eCO as electronic files.

     To register a claim electronically, go to the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov and click on the eCO logo shown above.

Copyright: New Rules and Other News

  • Copyright Office Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend Current Regulations Governing Group Registrations

In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Copyright Office is proposing to amend 37 CFR Part 202, the current regulations governing group registrations, to allow the grouping of individual works on one registration application. Under the proposal, applicants who take advantage of the group registration option would be required to file their claims electronically. Comments are due on or before May 30, 2008. The stated purpose of the amended regulations is to increase online registrations (link to Copyright Office).

  • RIAA Lawsuit Victory Against Individual Getting a Second Look

William Patry at The Patry Copyright Blog posted an interesting article recently concerning one of the most watched music industry lawsuits (see "Breaking Development in Thomas Making Available Case"). As Patry notes, the case of Capitol v. Thomas in Minnesota "has been watched worldwide," due primarily to the large amount of the jury verdict awarded against Ms. Thomas (who, by the way, has moved for a new trial on the basis that the amount awarded was unconstitutionally excessive). As discussed by Patry and reported by the Recording Industry v. The People Blog, attention given the jury award has now shifted after the District Court "adjourned the briefing schedules for the determination of whether it had committed a 'manifest error of law' when it accepted the RIAA's proposed jury instruction that merely 'making available' [a music file] constituted an infringement of the distribution right and overlooked the controlling Eighth Circuit case, National Car Rental System v. Computer Associates, which had held that there can be no infringement of the 17 USC 106(3) 'distribution right' without actual dissemination of copies or phonorecords."

For other RIAA posts on this website, see "Recording Industry Follows Through on Threats to Sue" and "Downloading Music Benefits Both Consumers and Artists, Study Finds".

Federal Trademark Trends in Maryland: 1Q 2008

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the period January through March 2008, the PTO received 15 trademark applications from Maryland resident or entities (based on a search of "owner address" records using TESS). That number is a 38% decline in the number of applications received for the same period in 2007 (24), and a 6% decline over 2006 numbers (16).



     The number of registrations to Maryland individuals or entities in the first quarter of 2008 was down compared to last year. According to the PTO, 8 registrations were effective during the period January through March 2008, which is a 43% decline in the number of registrations for the same period in 2007 (14 registrations), and an 11% decline over 2006 numbers (9).

 

Marylanders See Big Increase in Federal Trademarks Registered in 2007

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) searchable records show that for the period January through December 2007, the PTO registered 83 federal trademarks to Marylanders (based on a search of "owner address" records using TESS). The PTO registered 57 trademarks to Marylanders for the same period in 2006 (a 46% difference), and 38 trademarks in 2005 (a 118% difference).





     Some of the more notable or interesting marks registered in 2007 include Registration 3291904 for ORIOLES (filed Oct. 20, 2005), Registration 3214009 for DLA PIPER, Registration 3217622 for RAVENS, Registration 3359033 for SOME THINGS.....ARE JUST TOO GOOD TO WAIT FOR (owner: Maryland 3D Ultrasound; what else!), Registration 3338092 for FESTIVUS MAXIMUS, and Registration 3300301 for CHESAPEAKE BAY WEEK (owner: Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission).

     In terms of applications, Marylanders submitted 85 trademark applications to the PTO in 2007, which is the same number submitted in 2006, but ten more than the 75 applications submitted in 2005.

 

More Copyright Legislation Introduced in House

     A few weeks ago I posted "Congress and Copyrights: A Busy Legislative Year," in which I summarized three Congressional bills targeting copyright infringement/infringers:

  • The Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 3155-IH),

  • The Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007 (S.2317), and

  • The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R.4137). 

     Last week, Congress was at it again, with the introduction of yet more legislation amending the Copyright Act, as summarized below.

  • Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property ("PRO IP") Act of 2007

H.R.4279 was introduced in the House on December 5, 2007, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). The bill would, among other things, amend 17 U.S.C. § 410 by adding a new paragraph (c)(1): "A certificate of registration satisfies the requirements of section 411 and section 412 regardless of any inaccurate information contained in the certificate, unless (A) the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate; and (B) the inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration." 

The bill would also amend § 504 as follows:

"(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. [[For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.]] A copyright owner is entitled to recover statutory damages for each copyrighted work sued upon that is found to be infringed. The court may make either one or multiple awards of statutory damages with respect to infringement of a compilation, or of works that were lawfully included in a compilation, or a derivative work and any preexisting works upon which it is based. In making a decision on the awarding of such damages, the court may consider any facts it finds relevant relating to the infringed works and the infringing conduct, including whether the infringed works are distinct works having independent economic value."

Title III of the bill proposes to established within the Executive Office of the President the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, whose job it would be to serve as the principal adviser to the President on domestic and international intellectual property enforcement policy, among other things.

The bill would also require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service, to appoint 10 intellectual property attaches to serve in United States embassies or other diplomatic missions. The 10 appointments shall be in addition to personnel serving in the capacity of intellectual property attache at United States embassies or other diplomatic missions on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Comments:

  • § 411 and § 412 deal with lawsuits for copyright infringement, so the new legislation would, ostensibly, prevent lawsuits being dismissed or adjudged in favor of defendants based on minor inaccuracies in author's copyright registrations.

  • The underlined section shown above would allow a court to make multiple damages awards for the infringement of a single "compilation," something not allowed under the current statute. A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term includes collective works. Databases are examples of compilations. Some of the tables of data on this blog would be examples of compilations, although the data on the tables (i.e., "facts") would not be protected.

  • The PRO IP bill has bi-partisan support:

Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Ric Keller [R-FL]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]

  • Status: referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary

Copyright Office Issues Rules Governing Renewal Registration

     According to a Copyright Office statement, under the 1909 copyright law, works copyrighted in the United States before January 1, 1978, were subject to a renewal system in which the term of copyright was divided into two consecutive 28-year terms. To secure the renewal protection, the claimant had to file a renewal registration within strict time limits. However, since January 1, 2006, all applications for renewal have necessarily related to works which, due to automatic renewal, are already in their renewal terms, making impossible any renewal in the 28th year.

     Consequently, the Copyright Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations to account for these facts and to clarify certain renewal requirements (72 FR 16306). The Copyright Office received no opposition to its proposal, so it issued a final rule incorporating the proposed revisions to 37 CFR 202.17.

Comments:

  • Any applications for registration of claims to the renewal term must be filed using the newly revised forms. The previously used forms are obsolete, and the new forms must be used to file renewal claims (see Form RE, Form RE/CON, and Form RE/ADDENDUM). 

  • New rule: 72 FR 61801

Sen. Baucus to the PTO: Don't Register "The Last Best Place"

Question: What do Montana's slogan “'The Last Best Place” and federal appropriations legislation have in common?  One was used to stop the other from becoming the trademark of a Nevada company.


    Sec. 206 of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 prohibits the use of federal funds to "register, issue, transfer, or enforce any trademark of the phrase THE LAST BEST PLACE." It was added to the 2006 and 2007 federal appropriations legislation by Montana Sen. Conrad Burns (Sen. Max Baucus continued the tradition for the 2008 bill) in response to attempts by Last Best Beef, LLC, a Nevada company, to trademark the phrase in connection with a variety of different products and services. The phrase, however, happens to be Montana’s slogan. When President Bush signed the appropriations acts into law, the PTO withdrew registration for several of the Last Best Beef’s trademark applications. Last Best Beef responded by filing a civil lawsuit against the PTO (see Senate approves ‘Last Best' measure). 

    The Eastern District of Virginia that found Sec. 206 invalid, and thus a legal nullity, on the grounds that it contradicted but did not constitute an implied repeal or suspension of the Lanham Act. In The Last Best Beef, LLC v. Dudas, No. 06 Civ. 2219 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that Sec. 206 was not invalid. In reaching its decision, the Court refused to adopt a per se rule that Congress cannot amend or suspend prior legislation through appropriations riders, stating:

     “While the district court expressed the view that it was unwilling to see the Lanham Act punctuated by the types of exceptions that characterize such complex bodies of law as the Internal Revenue Code, the wisdom of tradeoffs between simplicity and complexity is for Congress to decide, not the federal courts. What may seem inadvisable on the part of Congress is not unconstitutional.”

Comments:

  • So what’s the lesson? Don’t fret with the PTO's trademark opposition rules. You can always seek intervention from your Senator, especially where the trademark involves a well-known slogan. Just goes to show the power of the legislative branch in wielding the appropriations axe.

  • So how does this case affect Maryland?  Because the Fourth Circuit includes Maryland, the Last Best Beef v. Dudas is a precedential opinion in this state, so don't tread on the Old Line State or mess with The Free State.

  • In dicta, the Circuit Court Judges stated that Last Best Beef "certainly has a point," revealing the Court's appreciation for the positions advanced by Last Best Beef in this case.

  • Other trademarks Congress has removed from the trademark application process:

    • SMOKEY BEAR (exclusive rights given to the Dept. of Interior)
    • THE GIRL SCOUTS OF AMERICA (exclusive rights to emblems, badges)
    • LITTLE LEAGUE (exclusive rights given to Little League Baseball)
    • UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (exclusive rights given to the U.S. Olympic Committee)  

Fourth Circuit Affirms Copyright Infringement Case Against NFL Licensees

Summary:  Seeking only minimal recognition for his Baltimore Ravens logo design, Baltimore amateur artist ends up seeking certiori from the Supreme Court in his copyright infringement case, winds up with no damages award


 

 

 

 

 

    

    

     So how much is an NFL franchise team logo worth? Just ask Frederick Bouchat, who sued the Baltimore Ravens and the National Football League Properties (NFLP) over their use and licensing of a logo that closely resembled a drawing Bouchat faxed the Ravens back in 1995. All Bouchat asked in return was a letter of recognition and an autographed helmet, a small reward from a team and League making millions in revenues at the time.

     After a lengthy bifurcated copyright infringement trial, the District Court for the District of Maryland found that the Ravens had infringed Bouchat's copyrighted work. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court decision. His damage award, however, was zero (and he's still waiting for his recognition letter and autographed helmet). Bouchat then sued the NFL's licensees, and won again. However, he was not so lucky when it came to seeking damages.

     Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1), a copyright owner may seek actual damages plus any additional profits of the infringer. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), an award of statutory damages may be made "in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000."

     In this case, Bouchat had little actual damages (he was not making any products using the logo himself), so he sought profits from the Ravens and dozens of NFLP licensees who were selling myriad items containing the "Flying B" logo. The jury found that defendants' income from products containing the Flying B were attributed completely to factors other than the artwork itself, and therefore did not award Bouchat any damages. Moreover, Bouchat was not entitled to an award of statutory damages because he had not registered his copyrighted work before the Ravens' and licensees' infringing conduct began:

"Once NFLP designed and licensed the Flying B logo that infringed Bouchat's copyright, the liability of all of NFLP's licensees became a foregone conclusion.  Thus, we hold that a copyright owner may not obtain statutory damages from a licensee liable jointly and severally with a licensor when the licensor's first infringing act occurred before registration and was part of the same line of related infringements that included the licensee's offending act." 

Comments:

  • Something tells me that the recognition letter and helmet Bouchat requested were viewed by Ravens' lawyers as evidence or an admission of sorts that the Ravens were infringing. Would that "payment" have been later viewed as forming an implied license to use the logo?  Would Bouchat have sued anyway after receiving the thank you letter? No one can tell for sure, but it shows how damages-wary lawyers think about actions their clients make, even the smallest of gestures

  • The Copyright Act provides that no award of statutory damages shall be made for any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective data of its registration. Lesson learned: even if you're an amateur artist, don't forget to register your work with the Copyright Office (electronic registration costs are minimal) in order to seek statutory damages; you just never know when and where your work will wind up being used

  • NFLP's use of the logo generated over $2.6 million in gross revenues from June 1996 through March 31, 1999 (after that date, the logo was no longer used)

  • Cites: Bouchart v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 228 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038 (2001) (Bouchart I); Bouchat v. K-Mart Corporation, No. 01 Civ.1996-1-MJG (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2007)

  • Howard Schulman, of Shulman & Kaufman, LLC, Baltimore, MD, argued for Appellant Bouchart.  Defendants-Appellees were represented by White & Case and Hogan & Hartson LLP of Baltimore, MD

Federal Trademark Registrations and Applications Increase in Maryland

     The first nine months of 2007 saw an increase in the number of federal trademarks registered to Maryland entities and/or individuals, compared to the same period in 2006. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) searchable records show that for the period January through September 2007, the PTO registered 45 federal trademarks to Marylanders (based on a search of "owner address" records using TESS). The PTO registered 35 federal trademarks to Marylanders for the same period in 2006 (a 29% difference). 


     


      In terms of filed applications, the PTO received 71 applications for trademarks from Maryland entities and individuals for the first nine months of 2007, compared to 65 applications received during the same period in 2006 (a 9% increase).


Copyright Office Announces Electronic Registration Testing

     The Copyright Office issued an announcement that it is conducting beta testing of its web-based registration system, which will be part of the new "electronic Copyright Office" (eCO). According to the announcement, participants in eCO beta testing will file basic registration claims at a reduced fee established for electronic filings (i.e., $35, which is $10 less expensive than the current paper filing fee). Individuals prepared to register at least one basic claim that would like to be considered for participation in eCO beta testing can complete and submit a short request form available here. Reportedly, groups of beta testers will be selected from requests received periodically throughout the duration of the beta testing. The announcement does not state how long beta testing will last.

Comments:

Maryland IP Litigation Cases for the Week of September 3, 2007

     The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland was chosen as the forum for litigating the following case(s), as published by Justia:

  • Extra Space Storage, LLC v. Maisel-Hollins Development Co. et al , Case Number 1:2007cv02351, filed September 5, 2007

According to court papers filed September 5, 2007, Plaintiff Extra Space Storage, LLC, a Delaware entity based in Salt Lake City, Utah, sued Maryland-based Defendants Maisel-Hollins Development Co., Extra Space Management Co. LLC, Annapolis Self Storage Limited Partnership LLP, Silver Spring Extra Space LLC, Annapolis Extra Space LLC, and Post Management Co., for alleged trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.  The mark at issue is Plaintiff's federally-registered mark "Extra Space Storage" (the image above shows the mark used in commerce on Plaintiff's web site).

Plaintiff notes in its complaint that the State of Maryland issued a registration for the trademark "Extra Space Self Storage" to Defendant Maisel-Hollins Development Co.  Maryland's trademark records show that the mark was first used in Maryland in 1985; the mark has a registration date of June 15, 2007.  Plaintiff is seeking to cancel this registration in Maryland, among other requested relief.

Federal Trademark Registrations and Applications Increase in Maryland

     The first seven months of 2007 saw an increase in the number of federal trademarks registered to Maryland entities and/or individuals, compared to the same period in 2006. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) searchable records show that for the period January through July 2007, the PTO registered 27 trademarks to Marylanders (based on a search of "owner address" records using TESS). The PTO registered 24 marks to Marylanders for the same period in 2006. 

     In terms of filed applications, the PTO received 65 applications for trademarks from Maryland entities and individuals for the first seven months of 2007, compared to 35 applications received during the same period in 2006. 

Maryland Flag

Reengineering the Copyright Office

The Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, must have her hands full these days.  As the Office's fifteenth Register, and only the second woman to hold the position, she is overseeing a "reengineering" of many of the Copyright Office's electronic systems, including those that serve the public.  The stated goal of the reengineering program, which started under previous Registers, is to increase the availability of services online and make Office records more promptly available via the Internet.  Those objectives will be implemented by the program's two biggest changes:

  • A new copyright records search system, available this month, which will reportedly allow users to electronically access more than 20 million digital records of registrations and recorded documents from 1978 to the present; and
  • A new online copyright registration portal, available soon, which will provide an alternative to the current paper method of registering new works.

If any of the beta users of these computer systems would like to share their initial thoughts about the new systems, please send them to this author.