Shape Blog

Issued: April 25, 2006
Section 2(f)
Owner: Rickenbacher International Corporation, Santa Ana, CA.
For: Electronic pickups for musical instruments, namely, guitar pickups, custom-designed electromagnetic pickups, and electrical pickups for multi-string musical instruments.

"The mark consists of a configuration of a rectangular metal guitar pickup with left and right side metal coverings over magnetic electronics for electronically transmitting sound to the amplification system."

Posted by John L. Welch at 07:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For:Jewelry
Issued: July 5, 2005
Section 2(f)
Registrant: Rachel Carey-Harper, Dennis, MA

"The mark consists of the three-dimensional configuration of a section of a bracelet consisting of a ball having two small collars on each side."

"No claim is made to the exclusive right to use oval shape of a bracelet body apart from the mark as shown."

Posted by John L. Welch at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Issued April 18, 2006, under Section 2(f).
For "Pet Toys, Namely, A Ball Throwing Apparatus."
Registrant: Canine Hardware Inc., Kent, WA.
"The mark consists of the configuration of a ball throwing toy with rounded cup."

Posted by John L. Welch at 07:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Upper Deck Company owns at least two United States Registrations for "hologram" trademarks for "trading cards": Regs. Nos. 2,710,652 and 2,360,979. The mark of the former registration is in the shape of a rectangle on a diamond (see PTO drawing immediately beolw), while the latter is in the shape of a hockey puck.

Upper Deck didn't fare so well, however, when it attempted to register the "holgram" mark shown below:

"The mark consists of a hologram device applied to the goods, trading cards. The mark is discrete from and does not constitute a part of subject matter of the trading card. Neither the size nor the shape of the hologram device, nor any content which may be represented within the hologram device, nor the positioning of the hologram device on the trading card are claimed as features of the mark. The drawing is lined for the color silver, but color is not claimed as a feature of the mark."

In In re The Upper Deck Co., 59 USPQ2d 1688 (TTAB 2001), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a refusal to register this alleged mark because it is a "phantom" mark: i.e., the Board found that Upper Deck's hologram, without further definition, constituted more than one "device" or mark, as contemplated by Section 45 of the Trademark Act.

Posted by John L. Welch at 03:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

U.S. Trademark Application SN 78643174. The mark consists of 'design of a bottle cap with the words NO-CAL.'

So what does this protect? This isn't a 3-D mark, it's a 2-D mark in the shape of the outline of a bottle cap. I suspect that another soda company could have a logo in the shape of a bottle cap as well. But they may not be able to use a design that looks like this.

Posted by Marty at 03:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Brownsville Specialty Paper Products, Inc. has filed a petition for cancellation of Fibermark, Inc.'s trademark registration for a mark consisting of "a representation of the consistent mottled pattern shown on the surface of the goods."

The mark is the subject of U.S Trademark Registration No. 3,038.726, issued on January 10, 2006, for "paperboard provided to others for making report, document and notebook covers, and for making binders and folders." The Registration issued under Section 2(f).

Brownsville alleges that the Fibermark "mottled pattern" mark is, inter alia, functional, generic, indefinite, and non-distinctive.

Posted by John L. Welch at 07:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Germany law firm of Cohausz Dawidowicz Hannin & Partner maintains the Non-Traditional Trademark Archives.

Posted by Marty at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are two major hurdles to registration of product configuration trade dress at the USPTO: functionality and distinctiveness. In the latest Trademark Reporter, Karen Feisthamel, Amy Kelly, and Johanna Sistek provide helfpul advice on how to approach those hurdles, and maybe even clear them. "Trade Dress 101: Best Practices for the Registration of Product Configuration Trade Dress with the USPTO," 95 Trademark Reporter 1374 (November-December 2005).

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, (2000)

For more discussion of this article and of the topic in general, go to this posting at the TTABlog.

[The TMR article is Copyright 2005 the International Trademark Association and is reprinted, with permission, from the Trademark Reporter, 95 TMR 1374 (November-December 2005).]

Posted by John L. Welch at 04:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)