Skip to main content

Trademarks In The Dark

If you have a business, then you know that filing for a trademark is pretty easy in the USA. You just go to the USPTO web site (www.uspto.gov) and start filling out the form. The cost is significantly less now, nearly a third of what it was a couple of years ago. That's great news.

What you don't know about your mark, though, is that there is a plethora of common law that dictates whether or not you can file with your specimens. The specimens are documents that clearly show your mark being used in commerce. Well, my last mark registration came back to me with the examiner asking for a better specimen that places the mark in closer proximity to evidence of commerce. Closer proximity. Yeah. Right.

Apparently Lands’ End, Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 514, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992); In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727-1729 (TTAB 2004); In re MediaShare Corp., 43 USPQ2d 1304 (TTAB 1997); TMEP §§904.06(a) and (b), establish some common law that determines an acceptable proximity of your mark to evidence of commerce.

I don't have a problem with common law judgements in the case of trademark protection. Really, it's a good thing. What I do have a problem with is the apparent lack of disclosure on the USPTO web site. If we are governed by common law,then someone needs to review those cases and establish clear guidelines about proximity and fair-use. Otherwise, filing a trademark is akin to running in the dark. We all know what happens when you run in the dark...

Without publishing proper guidelines, the USPTO is endorsing the legal industry. Apparently they don't want you to file your own trademark, but rather pay a trademark attorney $2500 to file it for you. That $2500 is 10 times what it costs to file it yourself. I'd rather spend my money on building the business that I am trademarking.

So in my case, the trademark was for a web site. My specimens were of the home page that clearly shows the mark near links to purchase service. Because of this proximity ruling, though, the specimen I used is not valid. I needed to show the mark physically closer to the act of commerce, such as a link or button to purchase items. So I suppose some judge out there pulls out his ruler and literally measures how close your mark is to commerce. If it's over 1 millimeter, then your specimen is invalid. On the Web, though, the spatial proximity of your mark to commerce is governed by the size of the font and its leading. If your customers use enlarged fonts for page viewing, then you're screwed. When you submit your specimen for examination, though, I encourage you to do so in the smallest, most scaled-down, font possible. That way this phantom proximity ruling would not apply to you.

Popular posts from this blog

Stock Option Debt Income

The 2024 Presidential election has brought out a topic of interest that seems to have been perverted. There is this "Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains" [1] movement that is being falsely attributed to Vice President Harris. Clearly, this is a change in the revenue code that was designed by someone in office long before VP Harris was in office. My money is on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. What is this change in the revenue code though? For that you have to understand what Silicon Valley zillionaires are doing with their stock options. Many of these people in this special economic area have huge discounts on stock prices for companies that are not public yet, or are public and can not be sold [2]. To be fair to these holders of equity, banks allow them to finance debt using leverage against those options. If you hold an option that is worth $5M then a bank might lend you a share of that value, thus realizing a debt against the option [3]. This is a fair debt instrument and...

A Self Defeating Race False Narrative

2020 is the year of the pandemic. The SARS-Cov-2 (Covid19) virus has rampaged across the planet infecting 4,893,136 [1] people by May 20, 2020. At this time, of those 4.8M people, 323,256 people have perished from complications that arise from the infection. Arising out of this pandemic has been a narrative about non-white ethnic groups being disproportionately affected by the infection [6,7,8]. A narrative that conditions people to believe that they are perpetually victims only creates a "collective victimhood" [4,5] in that group. This "collective victimhood" costs its members millions in unrealized potential, sends them cowering from social interactions that would otherwise benefit them, and ultimately creates an environment that perpetuates itself. Let's try to dispel that false narrative and deal just with data. I pulled my data from the CDC [9] looking at mortality only. The mortality data from CDC contains per-state mortality rates on a per-infectio...

Number of Primes

Anderson's Theorem (a) The number of primes in [1,n] is no more than 2+floor(n/2). The probability of n being prime when n is not prime is 1/2 - see Dasgupta,Papadimitriou,Vazirani "Algorithms" page 26. Therefore, the E(pi(n)) is n/2. (b) There does not exist another set of adjacent primes other than {1,2,3} 5: 2 + floor(5/2) = 2 + 2 = 4:=> {1,2,3,5} : 4 <= 4 7: 2 + floor(7/2) = 2 + 3 = 5 => {1,2,3,5,7} : 5 <= 5 11: 2 + floor(11/2) = 2 + 5 = 7 => {1,2,3,5,7,11} 6 <= 7 26: 2 + floor(26/2) = 15 => {1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23} : 10 <= 15 Lagrange's Theorem is Inaccurate Lagrange's theorem about primes states that pi(x) is the number of primes <= x. The pi(x) is approximately x/ln(x). He postulated that the lim of pi(x)/(x/lnx) as x-> infinity was 1. This is incorrect. if the number of primes is bounded by n/2 then refactoring and reducing Lagrange's Theorem results in the lim of ln(x) as x approaches infinity. This is alwa...