tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6478689071284187541..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: When its comes to "deadwood", leave it in the State of South Dakota and out of Trademark Office policyVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27723611691661146952016-08-07T22:22:06.837+01:002016-08-07T22:22:06.837+01:00Neil - suppose I get a list of the 10000 most comm...Neil - suppose I get a list of the 10000 most common words, and I put in a trade mark application for each of them with the letter "I" in front. What will Apple do when they invent a new device? The problem isn't that IPad is descriptive, it's that the term should be free until someone actually starts making the product.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88740039855072259472016-08-07T10:52:24.667+01:002016-08-07T10:52:24.667+01:00As always, this Kat thanks readers who have publis...As always, this Kat thanks readers who have published their Comments. While this Kat does not usually offer his own further Comments, he would like to make an exception in the interest of making his position clear.<br /><br />1. This Kat does not dispute that an argument can be made that there is deadwood (non-use for some or all of a registered mark) on the trademark registry.<br />2. But this is at most a fact, not a problem. The problem usually expressed is that deadwood on the registry is making clearance more and more difficult.<br />3. We suggest that the problem of clearance is not necessarily the result of deadwood, because there is a virtually unlimited number of (word) marks that can be created in a language, each mark inherently distinctive and different from the other. In such a situation, the presence of deadwood should not significantly affect trademark clearance.<br />4. The problem allegedly caused by deadwood arises because some/many/most trademarks are not of this kind, but straddle the descriptive/suggestive divide. Because of the potentially descriptive aspect of such marks, they are far fewer in number, which makes clearance of a newly proposed descriptive/suggestive mark more difficult.<br />5. If examination is more inclined to find a mark descriptive rather than suggestive, then its registration will depend upon proving secondary meaning, i.e., substantial use, and thereby lessen the amount of trademark deadwood on the registry (and also ease the problem of clearance).<br /><br />The views of Kat readers are, of course, welcome.Neil Wilkofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04200865773480720037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20140610700979339202016-08-06T18:44:24.778+01:002016-08-06T18:44:24.778+01:00“A trademark owner will likely pay such a fee only...<br /><br />“A trademark owner will likely pay such a fee only if the mark is actually being used”. <br />This is not always true. Imagine I have a trademark registered for video-games but I am worried that someone else could register the same mark for, let's suppose, clothing. <br />As a solution, I will register the mark also for clothing (without using it). And before the 5 years grace period has elapsed and the use has became compulsory, I will submit a new application for the same mark (for clothing). And I will have a new 5 years grace period. <br />In conclusion, the registries are full of marks which are not used, even though they are regularly renewed Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53674446349156719112016-08-06T15:58:33.230+01:002016-08-06T15:58:33.230+01:00Yeah, the Anonymouses are correct. One has absolut...Yeah, the Anonymouses are correct. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24014035490871571292016-08-05T11:23:33.754+01:002016-08-05T11:23:33.754+01:00Having a hard time understanding the jump from non...Having a hard time understanding the jump from non-used marks to descriptive marks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25187397742803477552016-08-05T10:51:59.172+01:002016-08-05T10:51:59.172+01:00The "Deadwood" issue isn't about acq...The "Deadwood" issue isn't about acquired distinctiveness. It's about marks that aren't being used at all remaining on the register, or overbroad lists of goods/services in an application when the mark isn't being used on all of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com