Nair Law LLC
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Rishi Nair >
      • Representative Experience
      • Publications & Awards
      • Professional & Civic Activities
      • Additional Background
  • Nair Law LLC Blog
  • Press Coverage
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

NFL Pressures Fan to Drop "Harbowl" Trademark Application

1/23/2013

0 Comments

 
ESPN reports that the NFL has pressured a fan who clairvoyantly predicted this year's Superbowl matchup to give up his application for "Harbowl."  The NFL asserted that Harbowl and Superbowl are so similar as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.
The NFL should be praised for its handling of the matter because it delivered the results a trademark owner desires: control and value.  Trademark owners should police their marks to ensure that infringers are not using the marks, others are not diluting the value of the mark in any way, and watching for similar marks that confuse consumers about the source of the product or service in question.  In many respects, the NFL's actions highlight the power of a proactive trademark owner that sees and appreciates the value of their mark, Superbowl.

Whether the NFL's bluster could hold up on court is another matter.  The standard for likelihood of confusion was clearly enunciated by the Federal Circuit in the Federal Circuit in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Those factors are:
    1.         The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.

    2.         The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods . . . described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.

    3.         The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.

    4.         The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. "impulse" vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.

    5.         The fame of the prior mark.

    6.         The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.   

    7.         The nature and extent of any actual confusion.

    8.         The length of time during and the conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.

    9.         The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used.

    10.        The market interface between the applicant and the owner of a prior mark.

    11.        The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods.

    12.        The extent of potential confusion.

    13.        Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.

Id. at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567.

There is no mechanical test for determining likelihood of confusion. The issue is not whether the actual goods are likely to be confused but, rather, whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and cases cited therein. Each case must be decided on its own facts.  See T.M.E.P. § 1207.01.

A quick weighing of the most important of those factors (see T.M.E.P.) should have you agreeing with the Professors cited in the article.  While the NFL is astute to point out that the applicant has not connection to the Harbaughs and does not own or operate an NFL franchise, if he is using that unique, whimsical phrase that concededly alludes to both the Superbowl and the Harbaughs, he still has the right to apply for the trademark.  If he is the first to apply and put his term onto use in his classification, he should be able to exclude others.  

Perhaps the Harbaughs would have a better claim to oppose the registration of his mark.  They, however, have not either filed an application of their own or indicated they would move to oppose this now abandoned mark.


Nair Law LLC can help anyone understand the trademark process.  If you are a trademark owner, Nair Law LLC has experience maintaining and prosecuting trademarks.  Nair Law LLC also has experience in litigating both in the trademark trial and appeal board (TTAB) but also in federal and state courts.  Nair Law LLC can set trademark owners up for success in licensing and consulting with business owners about how to maximize the value of their intellectual property.

Nair Law LLC can also help defend against petitions to cancel trademarks or threats from trademark owners to sue.  Contact us if you need questions answered.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C.

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    Categories

    All
    Accident
    ADA
    Affirmative Defense
    Alienation Of Affection
    Appeal
    Association
    Award
    Bankruptcy
    Breach Of Contract
    Breach Of Warranty
    Cancellation
    Cease And Desist
    Certify
    Choice Of Forum
    Choice Of Law
    Civil Rights
    Civil Rights Act Of 1964
    Class
    Class Action
    Commerce Clause
    Common Carrier
    Common Elements
    Compliance
    Condo
    Condominium
    Constitution
    Constitutional Rights
    Contracts
    Conversion
    Countersue
    Criminal Defense
    Debt
    Debt Collector
    Deep Dish Pizza
    Defamation
    Defense
    Dilution
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Dog Bite
    Driver
    Duty Of Care
    Elements
    Employment
    Employment Litigation
    Expert
    Express Warranty
    Failure To Maintain
    Fall Protection
    FDCPA
    Federal
    Federal Law
    First Amendment
    FOIA
    Forcible Entry And Detainer Act
    Forum Non Conveniens
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Hotel
    Illinois
    Illinois Law
    Implied Warranty
    Infringement
    Injunction
    Insurance
    Intellectual Property
    Intentional Tort
    IP Litigation
    IP Litigation
    Jury
    Jury Verdict
    Lawsuit
    Litigation
    Medical Malpractice
    Negligence
    Negotiate
    Osha
    Personal Injury
    Product Liability
    Property
    Protected Conduct
    Real Estate Landlord Tenant Ordinance
    Real Property
    Reckless
    Retaliation
    RLTO
    Safety
    Second Appellate District
    Section 1983
    Seniority
    Settlement
    Seventh Circuit
    Special
    Speeding
    Sports
    Subrogation
    Tax
    Taxation
    Ticket
    Title VII
    Tort
    Tortious Interference
    Trademark
    Trademark Enforcement
    Trademark Litigation
    Trespass
    Trespass To Chattels
    TTAB
    Uniform Commercial Code
    Unpaid
    Vehicle
    Workplace Accident

    RSS Feed

    Privacy Policy
    Terms of Use
    Disclaimer


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Phil Roeder