This week’s New & Noteworthy TTAB filings feature a lot of logos and design marks. Among them are oppositions and cancellations from “frequent filers” Major League Baseball and Monster Energy.
Creating a Monster – Monster Energy Opposes More Trademark Applications
Monster Energy has frequently been accused of overreaching when it comes to enforcing its trademark portfolio – in fact, Gerben IP’s Josh Gerben discussed trademark bullying in a Fox News segment about a recent Monster Energy opposition proceeding.
Monster Opposes Inspirational Design Mark
Monster Energy opposes a design mark that incorporates one of its energy drink trademarks, UNLEASH THE BEAST. The Design Mark in question is below, and it would seem questionable that anyone looking at that design mark would ever think of Monster’s products. The Design Mark seeks registration for various apparel. Notably, Monster’s UNLEASH THE BEAST trademark applications do not cover apparel and Monster is relying on common law rights based on its use of the phrase on t-shirts for over 10 years. 2/18/2015 – Link to Proceeding
Monster Opposes MONSTER MASH for Wine
Monster Energy filed a trademark opposition against a California winery’s application for MONSTER MASH for wine. Monster claims that the mark would be confusingly similar to its MONSTER mark for energy drinks. 2/18/2015 – Link to Proceeding
Professional Baseball Teams and Major League Baseball Refuse to Play Ball
Major League Baseball and its associated teams tend to be some of the most active trademark owners when it comes to enforcing their valuable trademarks. This week, there were three Major League Baseball-related trademark oppositions.
Toronto Blue Jays Oppose Creighton University’s Bird
The owners of the Toronto Blue Jays filed an opposition against Creighton University’s bird logo that the University adopted upon moving to the BIG EAST Conference in 2013. 2/17/2015 – Link to Proceeding
Major League Baseball Attempts to Cancel MAJOR LEAGUE ZOMBIE HUNTER Mark
The MLB filed a trademark cancellation against a registration for MAJOR LEAGUE ZOMBIE HUNTER for various apparel. The ZOMBIE HUNTER mark features a silhouette similar to the MLB’s trademark. 2/19/2015 – Link to Proceeding
Chicago Cubs Oppose CURRENTC “C” Logo
The Chicago Cubs opposed a mobile payment company’s application for its CURRENTC logo. Is it possible that someone using the payment service provided by CURRENTC would think it was related to the Chicago Cubs ‘C’ logo?
Large maritime themed conglomerate Nautica opposed the Grosse Pointe Club Junior Sail’s “D” logo. Nautica specifically objected to the Club’s registration of the mark on hats and t-shirts. Does Nautica really have a trademark on all stylized sailboats for shirts and hats?
Charity Opposes UNDIE RUN Application
Cupid Charity’s opposed The Dew, LLC’s application to trademark UNDIE RUN for event services. Cupid Charity’s argues that the term “undie run” is a generic term to describe a run where participants strip down to their underwear and run a course, usually to raise money for various causes. In fact, Cupid Charity’s has raised millions of dollars hosting “undie runs” throughout the United States and believes that no one should have exclusive rights in the phrase. 2/18/2015 – Link to Proceeding
Oil Company Exxon Flexes Their Trademark Strength Against ROXX VODKA XX Design
Exxon has always been aggressive when defending its famous XX trademark. It filed a trademark opposition against the makers of ROXX vodka, who used a mark similar to Exxon’s XX logo. While vodka has nothing to do with anything Exxon offers, Exxon claims that it use of the interlocking XX’s dilutes Exxon’s trademark. While courts have acknowledged that the EXXON mark is famous for purposes of dilution, it is unclear whether the interlocking XX logo has also achieved “famous” status. Exxon certainly thinks so – last year, Exxon filed a lawsuit against the FX network’s new channel, FXX for trademark infringement. 2/17/2015 – Link to Proceeding
French Owners of the CHAMPAGNE Certification Mark Oppose GLAMPAGNE
In accordance with treaty obligations, new wine makers in the United States cannot use call their sparkling wine “champagne” unless it is from the Champagne region of France. The Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne owns a certification mark and opposed the registration of GLAMPAGNE for wine. 2/17/2015 – Link to Proceeding