3 ms·

the other issue here is nominative use. Using trademarks as nouns can lead to dilution. This plays some into your "descriptive" complaint: Isn't "super bowl

by gonzo 12y ago

the other issue here is nominative use. Using trademarks as nouns can lead to dilution. This plays some into your "descriptive" complaint: Isn't "super bowl" just a description of a large sports event ; that would seems to lack the distinctiveness normally required of a trademark for anything that's normally related to sports events. But registration is prima facie evidence of validity. Quoting 15 USC 1507(b): A certificate of registration of a mark upon the principal register provided by this Act shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Surely that prima facie just means that courts should proceed with cases [that don't challenge the validity] assuming the mark to be valid once registered rather than that once registered the mark can not be challenged. For example genericisation causes a mark to become invalid despite that mark being registered - surely other objections work the same way. What I was trying to intimate was that someone with big enough cajones could challenge the validity of the mark as being merely descriptive of some goods (TV broadcasts, say) rather than being a proper indicator of origin of goods/services. ref: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0882283 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0882283, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0846056 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0846056 are some of the early registrations - NFL do appear to have seen off several other registrations and uses to the term "super bowl" (superbol, soul bowl, superbowlz, ...) in court however.

by gonzo 12y ago

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

Surely that prima facie just means that courts should proceed with cases [that don't challenge the validity] assuming the mark to be valid once registered rather than that once registered the mark can not be challenged. For example genericisation causes a mark to become invalid despite that mark being registered - surely other objections work the same way. What I was trying to intimate was that someone with big enough cajones could challenge the validity of the mark as being merely descriptive of some goods (TV broadcasts, say) rather than being a proper indicator of origin of goods/services. ref: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0882283 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0882283, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0846056 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0846056 are some of the early registrations - NFL do appear to have seen off several other registrations and uses to the term "super bowl" (superbol, soul bowl, superbowlz, ...) in court however.