This move is not surprising for Carey, who has been heavily associated with the holiday season and Christmas music for decades. Her 1994 hit, “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” continues to be a staple on holiday playlists. The song has even re-entered the Billboard Hot 100 chart every holiday season since it was first released.
In addition to her music, Carey has also been involved in various holiday-themed projects, such as her “Mariah Carey’s Merriest Christmas” special on Hallmark Channel, and her “All I Want for Christmas Is You” concert tours.

Hiring a trademark attorney can be a wise decision to help navigate legal complexities and increase your chances of success at the trademark office. CIONCA IP is a full-service, intellectual property law firm that specializes in trademark registration, enforcement, and litigation. With many years of experience and a team of trademark experts, the firm provides comprehensive guidance and representation, for individuals and businesses that are looking to protect their brand and intellectual property.

If you are interested in trademarking a name, logo, or slogan, or should you need help with any other intellectual property matter, CIONCA IP can help. The firm offers a free consultation to discuss your specific needs and provide a tailored solution.

In conclusion, Mariah Carey’s application to trademark “Queen of Christmas” highlights the importance of protecting one’s brand and intellectual property. Choosing an Orange County trademark attorney like CIONCA IP, can make the process of trademark registration smoother and increase the chances of success. CIONCA IP is a well-established firm in Orange County that offers comprehensive guidance and representation, for both individuals and businesses looking to protect their intellectual property.

The post Mariah Carey Trademark Application appeared first on CIONCA® IP Trademarks.

Rosetta Stone and Google Inc. settled a trademark lawsuit over Google Adwords after 3+ years of litigation. Although this was not the first time Google had been hit with trademark infringement lawsuits over keywords in search results, this case did mark a pillar stone in shaping future Google policies over its Google Adwords program for first-party owners.

Introduction

Rosetta Stone began as small family owned business. This language learning software brand earned its name as an industry-leader in technology –based language learning products and online services, and, by January 2010, it had become a publicly traded corporation with gross revenues valuing up to $252 million. With its rapidly expanding language learning services, Rosetta Stone officially owns and uses various registered trademarks including Rosetta Stone, Rosetta Stone Language Learning Success, RosettaStone.com and Rosetta World.

Description

Google had been hit with various other trademark infringement lawsuits due to its Google Adwords program. Since Google operates one of the world’s most sophisticated search engines, it also enables brands and trademark owners to use its Cost-per-Click (CPC) option in Google Adwords to bid for keywords that match their business trademarks and rank them higher on its Page 1 on the search engine. This CPC policy enables trademark owners to capture a wider market since most consumers who search for a ‘keyword’ only look at the top most searches in the Google Search Engine.

Google Adwords program allows various advertisers to purchase keywords without a condition of them actually ‘owning’ the ‘trademark’ words. Therefore many other trademark brands landed up suing third-party advertisers and Google over ‘stealing’ their ‘official trademark keywords’ such as Tiffany v. Ebay, CYBERsister v. Netnanny.com, etc.

However, since Rosetta Stone had a handful of ‘trademark keywords’ being purchased as CPC by third-party advertisers, it sued Google over various reasons, including direct trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) specifically for direct trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, vicarious trademark infringement, and trademark dilution. In addition, Rosetta Stone also filed a lawsuit against Google for unjust enrichment under Virginia state law.

The case which was first held in district court ended the settlement on confidential terms by stating that “both parties would meaningfully collaborate to combat online ads for counterfeit goods and prevent the misuse and abuse of trademarks on the Internet.” However, this did not clarify whether Google will revise or enhance its protection policies for first-party intellectual properties. Also, the district court decision did not state how and when Rosetta Stone would be compensated in damages by Google.

Apparently, the district court’s opinion seemed like a complete win for Google, this situation was reversed when the trademark case moved to the Fourth Circuit under Federal Courts Appeal.

Conclusion

The case holding under the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision summary judgment for the direct trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement and trademark dilution. The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the vicarious trademark infringement claim and upheld the motion to dismiss for unjust enrichment on a different reasoning than the district court under the following terms:

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order with respect to the vicarious infringement and unjust enrichment claims. We vacate, however, the district court’s order with respect to Rosetta Stone’s direct infringement, contributory infringement and dilution claims, and we remand the case for further proceedings on those three claims.”

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

Although many of the Google Adwords related problems related to trademark infringement remains unresolved, the Rosetta Stone lawsuit did start the debate to shape trademark law over the Internet.

The full opinion can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/102007.p.pdf

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed throughout this blog are the views and opinions of the individual author(s) and/or contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of our firm, CIONCA IP Law. P.C.

The post Google v. Rosetta Stone appeared first on CIONCA® IP Trademarks.

In a trademark or service mark application filed with the USPTO, and which is based on use in commerce, the mark must be in used in commerce on or in connection with all the goods and services listed in the application as of the application filing date. Use in commerce means use of the mark in all commerce which may be lawfully regulated by the U.S. Congress. An example of use in commerce activity are sales to out-of-state customers and shipment of the sold goods, having the mark on them, across state lines, to the customers’ out-of-state addresses (e.g., from California to Texas). Let’s look at some more specific examples below.

For Services

The mark used in association with services is called a Service Mark. For services, the mark must be used to “render” those services in commerce. Advertising the services using the mark to potential customers from more than one state is typically enough (e.g., catalogs and advertisements shipped to out-of-state customers). Also, if not already providing the services, the applicant must be ready to provide the services. Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone/internet lines to access a website. Certain services such as restaurant and hotel services, although they are typically provided locally (e.g., in one city only) have been deemed to be rendered in commerce because they are activities that have been found to be within the scope of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is predicated on the commerce clause, and thus such services can be regulated by the U.S. Congress.

For Goods

The mark used in association with goods is called a Trademark. For goods, things are more complicated. Goods (e.g., computers) must have the mark on them, or on the packaging, or the mark has to be in a product display or on a webpage next to the goods, where the customers can purchase the goods. A good example of use-in-commerce of the mark on goods (e.g., shoes) is applying the mark to the goods or to the packaging (e.g., via a sticker) selling the goods to out-of-state customers and shipping the sold goods to the customers’ out-of-state addresses (e.g., from California to Arizona).

What about a sale in California to customers from Arizona who came in your California store, bought the goods and took them home themselves? That is likely not sufficient to claim use in commerce. What about advertising the goods, such as on a website? Not enough. Advertising alone may be enough for services, but not enough for goods. What about when you import goods with the trademark on them from for example China with the mark affixed to the goods or their packaging? If you also sell the goods with the trademark on them after you import them, then claiming use in commerce is likely appropriate. What about when you export the goods, let’s say, to Europe? That is likely use in commerce, as the export activities can be regulated by the U.S. Congress. What about transportation by the trademark owner of the goods, with the trademark on them, across state lines? If a sale of the goods follows, use in commerce can likely be claimed. If a sale does not follow, or precede the interstate transportation, i.e., a sale of the goods never occurs, but the goods with the trademark on them are exposed to the public (e.g., at a trade show) in addition to being transported across state lines, use in commerce claim is likely appropriate. Note however that the real goods have to be transported and exposed to the public. A mock-up of the product or a picture of the product for example would not do.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed throughout this blog are the views and opinions of the individual author(s) and/or contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of our firm, CIONCA IP Law. P.C.

The post Trademark Use In Commerce. What Is That? appeared first on CIONCA® IP Trademarks.