BOB wishes everyone a happy and safe Halloween!
Too often we hear that the Secretary of State issued me a corporate name or an assumed name; thus, I have secured my trademark rights. Unfortunately, this way of thinking is wrong. The Secretary of State has no authority to grant trademark rights. Moreover, the Secretary of State is not evaluating company names in its database for confusion. As far as the Secretary of State is concerned, two company names can co-exist if the corporate entity designation is different (Inc. vs. LLC).
The majority of Secretary of State websites put too much emphasis on hurrying to reserve a company name. Some will even let you pre-register a name so you don’t lose it. The reality is that the trademark search should come first, then the reservation of the company name. Why, because most businesses use their company name as a trademark or service mark. Thus, the owner of federal registration can force a junior user to change its company name even though the Secretary of State issued the corporate name to you.
U.S. law recognizes the sanctity of communications between attorneys and clients; thus, the law will normally protect such communications from disclosure to third parties under the policy of attorney-client privilege. In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981), the United State Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to “encourage full and frank communications between attorneys and their clients, and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.”
The attorney-client privilege rule appears to be straight forward, but there are misconceptions about the breadth of privilege; namely, it applies to everything and every piece of information given to an attorney. But the attorney-client privilege protects only the legal advice given to a client, not the underlying facts given to an attorney. With respect to trademark searches, the rule is settled that an attorney’s opinions relating to a trademark search are privileged but the trademark search itself is not privileged. See Fisions Ltd. v. Capability Brown Ltd., 209 U.S.P.Q. 167 (T.T.A.B. 1980).
There is value in having an experienced, trademark attorney review search results. But its not worth the extra money for an attorney to conduct a trademark search if the rationale is to shield the results from discovery by another party.
Trademark rights in the United States are created through use—not registration. Once a party begins using a mark in commerce, it begins to acquire common-law rights in the mark. These common-law rights are limited to the geographic area in which the mark has been used on products sold or in which the services it covers have been promoted. A federal registration confers upon the owner presumptive nationwide rights in the mark regardless of the geographic areas where the owner is using the mark.
In 1959, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc. (267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959)). Dawn Donut Co. was a wholesale distributor of doughnuts and other baked goods, the senior user, and owned a federal registration for the trademarks DAWN and DAWN DONUT. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc. used the mark DAWN in connection with the retail sale of doughnuts and baked goods within certain counties surrounding Rochester, New York. Dawn Donut Co. sued Hart’s Food Stores, Inc. for trademark infringement and sought to enjoin the continued use of the DAWN mark even though Dawn Donut Inc. was not using its marks at the retail level or in the counties surrounding Rochester, NY. The district court denied the injunction; the Second Circuit affirmed, and created the “Dawn Donut Rule”:
[I]f the use of the marks by the registrant and the unauthorized user are confined to geographically separate markets, with no likelihood that the registrant will expand his use into the defendant’s market, so that no public confusion is possible, then the registrant is not entitled to enjoin the junior user’s use of the mark.
In other words, the owner of a federal registration has a nationwide right to use its mark, but the injunctive remedy does not ripen until the owner of the federal registration shows a likelihood of entry into the disputed territory. This rule has been adopted in the majority of federal appellate courts across the country.
What is means for any company choosing a new name is that a search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office database is 100% necessary because even though the owner of a federal registration is not currently in your market, the minute the federal registrant shows a likelihood of coming into your market it can force the junior user to rebrand.
AILPA recently released its 2017 Economic Study, and reported that the median cost of a clearance trademark search is $1,100. This number is based on an outside law firm performing the search. $1,100 is a lot of money to spend on a trademark clearance search, but as legal salaries continue to rise, so will this median number. The national average salary for a first-year associate in a law firm is about $153,000. The national average of a trademark paralegal is also high at about $55,000. And these numbers do not include other employment expenses like overhead and benefits.
As we discussed before, trademark searching is deceptively complex because of the nuance involved. But a computer can adequately account for the nuance and produce accurate results at a significant discount to the cost of a manual search. This does not mean that computers are here to replace attorneys, paralegals, or other professional trademark searchers. Instead, it is an opportunity to utilize technology to make the trademark clearance process more efficient, and change the way attorneys, paralegals, and professional searchers are used.
Instead of having the search performed by an outside firm, have BOB conduct the search and the search results interpreted by the outside firm. At $49.99-$14.99 per name, there no outside firm that can be as cost efficient as BOB.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), provided an opening for a more liberal standard for fees in trademark cases. Octane Fitness was a patent case where the Supreme Court interpreted the Patent Act’s identical attorney fees language: “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35. U.S.C. § 285.
Before Octane Fitness, attorneys’ fees were only recoverable in an “exceptional case” under the Lanham Act if there was evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith or willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark rights. Both acts were very different to prove, so attorneys’ fees awards were very rare in trademark infringement cases.
Octane Fitness held that, “an ‘exceptional case’ is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigation position (considering both the governing law and facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held that Octane Fitness applies to awards of attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. The remaining circuits are expected to follow suit.
Under the old, exceptional case standard, a failure to search alone was insufficient to conclude that a defendant acted in bad faith or willfully infringed the plaintiff’s mark. In fact, in some judicial circuits, a finding of actual confusion is a condition precedent to an award of attorneys’ fees, which Octane Fitness does not change.
Under the new, more liberal Octane Fitness standard, a failure to search alone will still be unlikely to warrant an attorneys’ fee award. But it may be a consideration when weighing substantive strength of a party’s litigation position. Defendants that did not conduct a search and do not have reasonable arguments supporting the absence of a likelihood of confusion need to carefully consider the decision of protracted litigation.
Most trademark attorneys advise their clients to obtain, at a minimum, all the top-level domain names associated with their trademark even if they will only use one of those domain names because the low cost of a domain name registration is cheap insurance compared to the cost associated wrestling a domain name away from a cybersquatter.
BOB’s trademark search is similar. At $49.99 or less, you will not find cheaper insurance against a charge that you did not discharge your obligation to be a responsible trademark owner.
Wild cards are symbols used within a term when searching. For example, to search for spelling variations of “technology” you may search for Te$ology. Sometimes, the same truncation symbols will be used as internal wild cards. The $ may represent an unlimited number of characters within a word as at the end or beginning of a term. Make sure to check the any search tips associated with the database you are searching. Like using symbols for truncation, be careful about using symbols with too few letters. It can results in overly broad search results.
Truncation is a searching technique used in databases where a word ending is replaced by a symbol. Frequently used truncation symbols include a question mark (?) or a dollar sign ($). Different databases use different truncation symbols, so it is important to check for a Help menu or Search Tips for details about what symbols to use.
Truncation allows different forms of a word to be searched for simultaneously and will increase the number of search results found. The USPTO uses the $ to signify an unlimited number of additional characters in the search for a term root. For example, the truncated word laugh$ will search for results containing laugh, laughter, laughing, etc. Placing the truncation symbol too soon in word should be avoided. For example, hum$ will search for results containing humor, human, humbug, humerus, hummus, etc.
Soon, BOB will include the option to use truncation in the mark search field.
If a search does not reveal a mark that is identical to your proposed mark for either identical or related goods or services, then you need to break up the mark – if it is logical to do so – and conduct a search of the components. There is a misconception that truncation variables need to be used in order to conduct a thorough search. This is not true. More often than not, simply breaking the mark into its logical components and searching the components will produce the results relevant to your search. However, if you are searching a word you know others spell differently or has an element common to several words, then using truncation variables can be helpful. Rarely does the Trademark Office refuse registration of a mark because it shares a similar prefix or suffix with another mark. If the mark as a whole is different, the Trademark Office is unlikely to find a likelihood of confusion exists.
Believe it or not, there is a method to the madness when it comes to conducting a trademark search. The goal is to identify warning signals that may require more investigation to determine if one of the identified marks in a search is in fact a knockout.
This starts with looking for the identical mark for the identical goods or services. If a mark is found in this first pass, the search is probably done. If no mark is found, then the next step is to look for parts of the mark with an identical goods or services description. Breaking up a mark may be as simple as separating its elements or as advanced as using truncation symbols and other operators. If no marks are found using the second wave of search conditions, then the next step is to repeat the process using goods and services that have been found to be related to the goods and services intended for the proposed mark.
It is only after following this hierarchy that a searcher can claim to have conducted a thorough trademark search, and it is this hierarchy that BOB follows to conduct its searches.