Cruz Law, PLLC

Dedicated representation, personal service and quality results

Adidas opposes ELeague mark for use of 3 stripes

Adidas has filed a Notice of Opposition against Turner Sports, Inc. for the application of its E mark which includes three parallel stripes in a diagonal as its logo.  The logo is to be used for its Esports league, ELeague, which has found a home on TBS.

In its application, it states that the mark “consists of The letter E formed by three slanted parallel lines.”

The application, filed on June 9, 2016, the goods and services are for:

Marketing services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others by allowing sponsors to affiliate their goods and services with participants or exhibitions in the field of electronic sports; online retail store services; retail store services featuring virtual goods, namely, clothing for use in online virtual worlds; association services, namely, promoting the interests of participants in the field of electronic sports; organizing, scheduling, conducting, and promoting exhibitions in the field of electronic sports; promoting public interest in the field of electronic sports; providing a forum to showcase, display, demonstrate, and promote ideas, products, and services in the field of electronic sports

A Notice of Opposition was filed on October 10, 2017.  The 139-page Notice of Opposition which mainly includes exhibits essentially points out that the 3 stripes would likely be confused with the proposed applicant.  It alleges likelihood of confusion and dilution per the Lanham Act.

This will be an interesting case to follow as Adidas is asserting that it is “The Brand with the 3 Stripes.”  Yet, the Turner logo differs despite the use of the three stripes on the Adidas brand being used in a variety of ways.  The Turner logo seems to be affixed in a three-line parallel slant.  There is a question of whether these two marks would be in the same class and whether there would truly be a likelihood of confusion.

“Mean Green” gets stern with ESPN, Michigan State

The North Texas Mean Green is protective of its nickname and was willing to send a cease and desist to ESPN and Michigan State when it referred to the Michigan State Spartans as the Mean Green in a recent commercial promoting its matchup with Michigan.

North Texas has a trademark on its nickname and it aimed to protect it when it let ESPN and Michigan State know. However, instead of a prolonged standoff, the cable network backed down and the Athletic Director for Michigan State reached out to North Texas administration.

.

This incident shows what a simple notification to an alleged infringer can do to save on legal fees.  It’s clear that ESPN was in the wrong and it was likely a simple oversight.  North Texas was professional in pointing out the infringement.  For its part, MSU and ESPN acknowledged the issue instead of attempting to argue otherwise. Sometimes being straightforward may be the best cure for an alleged infringer.

Cal rebuffs Chicago Bears on ‘Go Bears’ trademark

Go Bears belongs to Cal.  This, after the NFL’s Chicago Bears attempted to use the trademarked phrase as part of its twitter hashtag this season.

NFL teams have rolled out team hashtags.  When typed in, it would show a little logo of the team.

However, Cal had the phrase trademark in 2014.  It appears that the Chicago Bears are backing down from a potential legal fight with the Bay Area school.

This is not the first time that the Chicago football team has fallen to a college trademark.  Last year, it attempted to use the #BearDown mark.  Of course, that is trademarked by the University of Arizona.  The football team has the Bear Down moniker on its field at has been a long-time phrase.

The issue reflects a good cause for due diligence in having researched the phrase or mark you use in a marketing campaign.  Proper review will help eliminate potential PR faux pas like this.

The Midwest pro team is now 0-2 to Pac 12 teams.

In-n-Out sues over name of burgers

Two fast-food burger restaurants are embroiled in a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Central District of California as In N Out has sued Smashburger over the name of its new Triple Double burger.

In N Out claims that the new burger infringes with its Double Double and Triple Triple Burgers.  In N Out’s Double Double mark was approved by the USPTO in October 2014.  Triple Triple was awarded a registration in 1990.

Smashburger filed a trademark application for Smashburger Triple Double and Triple Triple and that mark is being opposed by In N Out.

It will be interesting to see how this litigation plays out as well as the opposition filed by In N Out.

From a trademark perspective, there is an argument that these trademarks are descriptive as each is merely describing the burger (i.e., double double has two patties, a triple triple has three patties, in the case of the triple double it has two burgers and three levels of cheese).  Descriptive marks tend to be on the weaker end of mark which allows for some flexibility from competitors to register similar marks and avoid infringement.  Based on the descriptiveness issue, we will see if Smashburger attempts to file a counterclaim and perhaps seek to cancel In N Out’s current trademarks.  We will see if that is what happens here.

Baseball Bat Makers Swing in Court in Trademark dispute

A battle of bats took place in the Eastern District of Missouri featuring two of the biggest makers of baseball bats in the industry.  Rawlings Sporting Goods Company sued Easton Diamond Sports alleging that Easton was infringing Rawlings 5150 model bats with an S150 model it was rolling out for 2018.

A day before Easton’s release of its bats, the Court denied a Temporary Restraining Order filed by Rawlings to halt the rollout of the S150 models.

Rawlings claimed that the S150 designation would likely cause confusion with the 5150 model.  In its opinion, the Court held there to be little likelihood of confusion between the two models.  Notably, the Court indicated that both brands used the name in addition to the model designations.  Also, in its marketing and point of sale materials, both used the “Rawlings” or “Easton” name to avoid any confusion with other brands.  Thus, the “sub-marks” on the baseball bats take on a “subservient role to the house brand.”

The Court also conducted a visual analysis of the marks and the “S”150 was not deemed confusing to the 5150 model.  It also did not believe an “untoward purpose” in the use of the S150 mark since other models used by Easton included an “S” before the model.  Thus, there was no belief of an intent to cause confusion.

In its order, the Court noted that Easton’s S150 was meant to be a “low-end” model while Rawlings’ 5150 was a “high-end” bat.

The ruling by the Court on the TRO does not mean that the lawsuit is over but Rawlings swung and missed at its first opportunity to halt its rival from selling its new models.

Rawlings v Easton by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd