ReportWire

Tag: trademark

  • Multnomah County Library System is New Home For Patents and Trademarks – KXL

    [ad_1]

    Oregon State University isn’t the only institution that will allow the public to apply for a patent or trademark. The Multnomah County Library system is partnering with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to become an official resource center.

    The county libraries will be able to connect the public with local patent lawyers, have discussion and provide searches about patents and trademarks, and help in the application process.

    Shawn Cunningham with the library says how this affiliation came about.

    “Multnomah County Library is always looking for ways to help patrons learn and create,” Cunningham said.

    “Becoming an official Patent and Trademark Resource Center for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is one new way that the library can help our community pursue their ambitions and goals,” Cunningham continued.

    He also teased some of the festivities that will be happening at Albina Library starting tomorrow.

    “We’ll have a range of programs that day, including a roundtable discussion with representatives from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,” Cunningham said.

    “People will be able to (also) connect with local trusted resources, like attorneys, who can help them protect their intellectual property,” Cunningham continued.

    Albina Library will mark the opening of the partnership starting at 12:30pm Wednesday.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Noah Friedman

    Source link

  • Is MrBeast launching his own bank? What we know

    [ad_1]

    YouTuber MrBeast has filed a trademark application for what appears to be a banking app, according to filing data.

    According to the application, filed on October 13 and seen by Newsweek, the social media star has filed a trademark for “MrBeast Financial”—a banking services mobile app that provides cryptocurrency, investment banking and other services. It has not yet been approved and there is little information about the full details of the venture.

    Newsweek reached out to representatives for MrBeast and his legal team as well as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to comment on this story outside of normal business hours.

    Why It Matters

    MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, is the most popular YouTuber in the world, with 446 million subscribers on the platform as at the time of writing. The 27 year old regularly posts videos of him and others taking part in stunts—including being punched by former professional boxer Mike Tyson—and he also participates in charitable acts including distributing clean drinking water to people in poverty.

    What To Know

    According to the application filed with USPTO, the trademark is for “downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for banking services, short-term cash advances, providing cryptocurrency exchange services, providing investment banking services and investment management services, providing consumer lending services and insurance services, providing financial advisory and consultancy services, providing financial planning services, and providing financial wellness education services.”

    The trademark application is owned by Beast Holdings LLC and no other information about its purpose exists in the public domain.

    It comes after Business Insider reported in March that a company owned by MrBeast was exploring the idea of building a financial services company that would offer loans, credit cards and banking services, as well as financial literacy content. The report was based on a leaked investor pitch deck which Newsweek was unable to verify.

    This is not the first time MrBeast has ventured outside of social media. The creator has also launched multiple business ventures, including the virtual fast food chain Beast Burgers, the chocolate brand Feastables and Lunchly, a “healthier” alternative to Lunchables.

    What People Are Saying

    Simon Taylor, a fintech expert with 60,000 followers, wrote on X: “MrBeast has proven his ability to branch out into consumer goods. And why shouldn’t that empire grow? I could see this being very brand-aligned if it helps consumers have good outcomes. MrBeast’s content is all about making good things entertaining. Or can we make entertaining things create good outcomes?”

    What Happens Next

    The application is being processed and has not yet been assigned to an examiner, USPTO information shows.

    MrBeast is also working on a novel with the author James Patterson, set to be released in 2026 by the publisher HarperCollins.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What Moo Deng Can Teach Us About Timing in Trademark Filings 

    [ad_1]

    From “Brat Summer” to “coconut tree,” the later half of 2024 was filled with various viral moments—but none quite as cute (and sassy) as Thailand’s pygmy hippo Moo Deng.

    At just two months old, the now famed hippo skyrocketed in popularity following a series of videos uploaded by her caretaker to social media. Her smooth silky skin became the inspiration for makeup tutorials on TikTok and a Sephora ad, while her unapologetically cute aggression towards her surroundings earned her a spot in the meme hall of fame. One visitor described Moo Deng as a “chaos rage potato.”

    While the hippo-hype might have died down, Moo Deng is resurfacing, this time not with her ferociously adorable biting, but with a lesson for brands looking to capitalize on viral moments.

    A recent case study by global intellectual property firm Rouse, highlights the importance of prioritizing IP protection before viral moments are struck, working proactively to protect themselves.

    “Whether for a company mascot, character, or product name, filing for trademark protection in advance helps avoid costly disputes and ensures that the benefits of commercial success stay with the rightful owner,” the study says.

    In Moo Deng’s case, the Zoological Park Organisation of Thailand (ZPOT)—which cares for the small hippo’s residence, the Khao Kheow Open Zoo—applied for various “Moo Deng” trademark applications, the study says, as the famed animal gained popularity on social media.

    Some of the applications were successfully registered at the time, and, with help from Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), ZPOT blocked certain third party filings that too closely resembled the now famous hippo For instance, trademarks with illustrations that physically resembled Moo Deng, or, or the word “Deng” alongside a hippo were blocked, per the study.

    By trademarking Moo Deng, the zoo can not only protect the viral figure’s brand identity, but also block others from profiting off her likeness. Additionally, trademarking allows the organization to license the hippo’s name and image to raise funds.

    “The benefits we will get from this will come back to the zoo to improve the life of all the animals here” zoo director Narongwit Chodcho told Sky News at the time.

    Yet, not everything has been as smooth as Moo Deng herself.

    Due to earlier third-party filings, some of ZPOT’s newer “Moo Deng” applications have collected objections, a bureaucratic challenge that could have been circumvented had Moo Deng been trademarked before becoming an internet star.

    “Moo Deng’s story shows, virality can happen overnight,” the study says. “and when it does, IP owners should be ready.”

    To learn more about filing for trademarks internationally, check out this guide from Inc.

    [ad_2]

    María José Gutierrez Chavez

    Source link

  • AI company Anthropic to pay authors $1.5 billion over pirated books used to train chatbots

    [ad_1]

    Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its chatbot.Related video above: The risks to children under President Trump’s new AI policyThe landmark settlement, if approved by a judge as soon as Monday, could mark a turning point in legal battles between AI companies and the writers, visual artists and other creative professionals who accuse them of copyright infringement.The company has agreed to pay authors or publishers about $3,000 for each of an estimated 500,000 books covered by the settlement.”As best as we can tell, it’s the largest copyright recovery ever,” said Justin Nelson, a lawyer for the authors. “It is the first of its kind in the AI era.”A trio of authors — thriller novelist Andrea Bartz and nonfiction writers Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson — sued last year and now represent a broader group of writers and publishers whose books Anthropic downloaded to train its chatbot Claude.A federal judge dealt the case a mixed ruling in June, finding that training AI chatbots on copyrighted books wasn’t illegal but that Anthropic wrongfully acquired millions of books through pirate websites. If Anthropic had not settled, experts say losing the case after a scheduled December trial could have cost the San Francisco-based company even more money.”We were looking at a strong possibility of multiple billions of dollars, enough to potentially cripple or even put Anthropic out of business,” said William Long, a legal analyst for Wolters Kluwer.U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco has scheduled a Monday hearing to review the settlement terms.Anthropic said in a statement Friday that the settlement, if approved, “will resolve the plaintiffs’ remaining legacy claims.””We remain committed to developing safe AI systems that help people and organizations extend their capabilities, advance scientific discovery, and solve complex problems,” said Aparna Sridhar, the company’s deputy general counsel.As part of the settlement, the company has also agreed to destroy the original book files it downloaded.Books are known to be important sources of data — in essence, billions of words carefully strung together — that are needed to build the AI large language models behind chatbots like Anthropic’s Claude and its chief rival, OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Alsup’s June ruling found that Anthropic had downloaded more than 7 million digitized books that it “knew had been pirated.” It started with nearly 200,000 from an online library called Books3, assembled by AI researchers outside of OpenAI to match the vast collections on which ChatGPT was trained.Debut thriller novel “The Lost Night” by Bartz, a lead plaintiff in the case, was among those found in the dataset.Anthropic later took at least 5 million copies from the pirate website Library Genesis, or LibGen, and at least 2 million copies from the Pirate Library Mirror, Alsup wrote.The Authors Guild told its thousands of members last month that it expected “damages will be minimally $750 per work and could be much higher” if Anthropic was found at trial to have willfully infringed their copyrights. The settlement’s higher award — approximately $3,000 per work — likely reflects a smaller pool of affected books, after taking out duplicates and those without copyright. On Friday, Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, called the settlement “an excellent result for authors, publishers, and rightsholders generally, sending a strong message to the AI industry that there are serious consequences when they pirate authors’ works to train their AI, robbing those least able to afford it.” The Danish Rights Alliance, which successfully fought to take down one of those shadow libraries, said Friday that the settlement would be of little help to European writers and publishers whose works aren’t registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.”On the one hand, it’s comforting to see that compiling AI training datasets by downloading millions of books from known illegal file-sharing sites comes at a price,” said Thomas Heldrup, the group’s head of content protection and enforcement.On the other hand, Heldrup said it fits a tech industry playbook to grow a business first and later pay a relatively small fine, compared to the size of the business, for breaking the rules.”It is my understanding that these companies see a settlement like the Anthropic one as a price of conducting business in a fiercely competitive space,” Heldrup said.The privately held Anthropic, founded by ex-OpenAI leaders in 2021, earlier this week put its value at $183 billion after raising another $13 billion in investments.Anthropic also said it expects to make $5 billion in sales this year, but, like OpenAI and many other AI startups, it has never reported making a profit, relying instead on investors to back the high costs of developing AI technology for the expectation of future payoffs.The settlement could influence other disputes, including an ongoing lawsuit by authors and newspapers against OpenAI and its business partner Microsoft, and cases against Meta and Midjourney. And just as the Anthropic settlement terms were filed, another group of authors sued Apple on Friday in the same San Francisco federal court.”This indicates that maybe for other cases, it’s possible for creators and AI companies to reach settlements without having to essentially go for broke in court,” said Long, the legal analyst.The industry, including Anthropic, had largely praised Alsup’s June ruling because he found that training AI systems on copyrighted works so chatbots can produce their own passages of text qualified as “fair use” under U.S. copyright law because it was “quintessentially transformative.”Comparing the AI model to “any reader aspiring to be a writer,” Alsup wrote that Anthropic “trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different.”But documents disclosed in court showed Anthropic employees’ internal concerns about the legality of their use of pirate sites. The company later shifted its approach and hired Tom Turvey, the former Google executive in charge of Google Books, a searchable library of digitized books that successfully weathered years of copyright battles.With his help, Anthropic began buying books in bulk, tearing off the bindings and scanning each page before feeding the digitized versions into its AI model, according to court documents. That was legal but didn’t undo the earlier piracy, according to the judge.

    Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its chatbot.

    Related video above: The risks to children under President Trump’s new AI policy

    The landmark settlement, if approved by a judge as soon as Monday, could mark a turning point in legal battles between AI companies and the writers, visual artists and other creative professionals who accuse them of copyright infringement.

    The company has agreed to pay authors or publishers about $3,000 for each of an estimated 500,000 books covered by the settlement.

    “As best as we can tell, it’s the largest copyright recovery ever,” said Justin Nelson, a lawyer for the authors. “It is the first of its kind in the AI era.”

    A trio of authors — thriller novelist Andrea Bartz and nonfiction writers Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson — sued last year and now represent a broader group of writers and publishers whose books Anthropic downloaded to train its chatbot Claude.

    A federal judge dealt the case a mixed ruling in June, finding that training AI chatbots on copyrighted books wasn’t illegal but that Anthropic wrongfully acquired millions of books through pirate websites.

    If Anthropic had not settled, experts say losing the case after a scheduled December trial could have cost the San Francisco-based company even more money.

    “We were looking at a strong possibility of multiple billions of dollars, enough to potentially cripple or even put Anthropic out of business,” said William Long, a legal analyst for Wolters Kluwer.

    U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco has scheduled a Monday hearing to review the settlement terms.

    Anthropic said in a statement Friday that the settlement, if approved, “will resolve the plaintiffs’ remaining legacy claims.”

    “We remain committed to developing safe AI systems that help people and organizations extend their capabilities, advance scientific discovery, and solve complex problems,” said Aparna Sridhar, the company’s deputy general counsel.

    As part of the settlement, the company has also agreed to destroy the original book files it downloaded.

    Books are known to be important sources of data — in essence, billions of words carefully strung together — that are needed to build the AI large language models behind chatbots like Anthropic’s Claude and its chief rival, OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

    Alsup’s June ruling found that Anthropic had downloaded more than 7 million digitized books that it “knew had been pirated.” It started with nearly 200,000 from an online library called Books3, assembled by AI researchers outside of OpenAI to match the vast collections on which ChatGPT was trained.

    Debut thriller novel “The Lost Night” by Bartz, a lead plaintiff in the case, was among those found in the dataset.

    Anthropic later took at least 5 million copies from the pirate website Library Genesis, or LibGen, and at least 2 million copies from the Pirate Library Mirror, Alsup wrote.

    The Authors Guild told its thousands of members last month that it expected “damages will be minimally $750 per work and could be much higher” if Anthropic was found at trial to have willfully infringed their copyrights. The settlement’s higher award — approximately $3,000 per work — likely reflects a smaller pool of affected books, after taking out duplicates and those without copyright.

    On Friday, Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, called the settlement “an excellent result for authors, publishers, and rightsholders generally, sending a strong message to the AI industry that there are serious consequences when they pirate authors’ works to train their AI, robbing those least able to afford it.”

    The Danish Rights Alliance, which successfully fought to take down one of those shadow libraries, said Friday that the settlement would be of little help to European writers and publishers whose works aren’t registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

    “On the one hand, it’s comforting to see that compiling AI training datasets by downloading millions of books from known illegal file-sharing sites comes at a price,” said Thomas Heldrup, the group’s head of content protection and enforcement.

    On the other hand, Heldrup said it fits a tech industry playbook to grow a business first and later pay a relatively small fine, compared to the size of the business, for breaking the rules.

    “It is my understanding that these companies see a settlement like the Anthropic one as a price of conducting business in a fiercely competitive space,” Heldrup said.

    The privately held Anthropic, founded by ex-OpenAI leaders in 2021, earlier this week put its value at $183 billion after raising another $13 billion in investments.

    Anthropic also said it expects to make $5 billion in sales this year, but, like OpenAI and many other AI startups, it has never reported making a profit, relying instead on investors to back the high costs of developing AI technology for the expectation of future payoffs.

    The settlement could influence other disputes, including an ongoing lawsuit by authors and newspapers against OpenAI and its business partner Microsoft, and cases against Meta and Midjourney. And just as the Anthropic settlement terms were filed, another group of authors sued Apple on Friday in the same San Francisco federal court.

    “This indicates that maybe for other cases, it’s possible for creators and AI companies to reach settlements without having to essentially go for broke in court,” said Long, the legal analyst.

    The industry, including Anthropic, had largely praised Alsup’s June ruling because he found that training AI systems on copyrighted works so chatbots can produce their own passages of text qualified as “fair use” under U.S. copyright law because it was “quintessentially transformative.”

    Comparing the AI model to “any reader aspiring to be a writer,” Alsup wrote that Anthropic “trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different.”

    But documents disclosed in court showed Anthropic employees’ internal concerns about the legality of their use of pirate sites. The company later shifted its approach and hired Tom Turvey, the former Google executive in charge of Google Books, a searchable library of digitized books that successfully weathered years of copyright battles.

    With his help, Anthropic began buying books in bulk, tearing off the bindings and scanning each page before feeding the digitized versions into its AI model, according to court documents. That was legal but didn’t undo the earlier piracy, according to the judge.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Unbelievable facts

    Unbelievable facts

    [ad_1]

    Velcro is a brand name, and the company launched campaigns to encourage people to stop using…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Unbelievable facts

    Unbelievable facts

    [ad_1]

    The Hershey Ice Cream Company and Hershey Chocolate Company are entirely separate, despite both…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • BharatPe, PhonePe settle 5-year long trademark disputes related to ‘Pe’ suffix

    BharatPe, PhonePe settle 5-year long trademark disputes related to ‘Pe’ suffix

    [ad_1]

    BharatPe Group and PhonePe Group have “amicably settled” all long-standing legal disputes pertaining to the use of the trademark with the suffix ‘Pe’, the companies said in a joint release.

    The fintechs have been involved in a long-drawn legal dispute across multiple courts for the past five years. The settlement will put an end to all open judicial proceedings. “This is a positive development for the industry. I appreciate the maturity and professionalism shown by the managements of both sides, working closely to resolve all outstanding legal issues and moving ahead to focus their energy and resources in building robust digital payment ecosystems,” said Rajnish Kumar, Chairman of BharatPe Board.

    “As a next step, parties have already taken steps to withdraw all oppositions against each other in the trademark registry which will help them to proceed with the registration of their respective marks,” the release said.

    Further, both entities will undertake other necessary steps to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement in respect of all cases before the Delhi and Bombay High Courts.

    Sameer Nigam, Founder and CEO PhonePe said, “’I am glad that we have reached an amicable resolution in this matter. This outcome will benefit both companies to move forward and focus our collective energy on growing the Indian fintech industry as a whole”.

    BharatPe, brand name of Resilient Innovations, was founded in 2018 when it launched India’s first UPI interoperable QR code for zero MDR payment acceptance service. It also operates the card acceptance terminal — BharatPe Swipe, and has 1.3 crore registered merchants across over 450 cities. It processes over 37 crore UPI transactions per month with annualised Transaction Processed Value (TPV) of ₹1.7-lakh crore.

    PhonePe Group’s digital payments app PhonePe was launched in August 2016. The platform has 53.5 crore registered users and a digital payments acceptance network of 3.9 crore merchants. It processes over 25.5 crore daily transactions with an annualised TPV of $1.5 trillion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China Manufacturing Tips for Cannabis Brands – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    China Manufacturing Tips for Cannabis Brands – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    China Manufacturing Tips for Cannabis Brands – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • Naming Your Franchise Business | Entrepreneur

    Naming Your Franchise Business | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    The following excerpt is from franchise expert Mark Siebert’s book The Multiplier Model. Buy it now.

    One of the first—and most important—tasks you’ll need to consider when starting a franchise business is choosing your name. The name represents you to your customers, and as such, it’s not a decision that should be made lightly.

    That said, names don’t make businesses. Businesses make names.

    While a good name choice may not be the cause of your success, a bad one can undoubtedly contribute to your demise, so keep the following pointers in mind.

    Related: Is Franchising Right For You? Ask Yourself These 9 Questions to Find Out.

    Don’t be too descriptive

    From the standpoint of obtaining a trademark (which will allow you to enforce your intellectual property rights), the more descriptive a name is, the harder it is to trademark.

    The word “hamburgers”—while it appears prominently on many signs—is not subject to trademark protection. Imagine the amount of legal fees you’d collect if you were fighting over the word “hamburgers.”

    A descriptive name could also lock your brand into a market position that you may not want to own at some point in the future. Boston Chicken became Boston Market because the company wanted to promote other menu items like turkey and meatloaf. So choosing a descriptive name can hurt you when it comes time to expand.

    If you absolutely need to use a descriptor to help explain your consumer offering, use it in a tagline, which you may or may not be able to trademark.

    Make sure that the name is easy to spell, pronounce, and remember. Shorter names are easier to use on signage, allowing you to use larger letters and make the name more visible.

    Related: The 4 Biggest Myths About Franchising

    Communicate positive attributes and values

    Even if you avoid a descriptive name, one thing you might do is ask yourself what attributes you want to communicate about your brand. You can then incorporate a word or part of a word that helps convey that attribute.

    FedEx, for example, which was originally Federal Express, was focused on the brand attribute of speed. PayPal focuses on friendliness and ease by adding the “Pal” appendage.

    Logos

    The process of developing a name and logo can be complex. It may include steps like:

    • Name derivation using words or parts of words with specific characteristics
    • Testing names and logos with focus groups
    • Other tools used by consultants on issues such as color and design

    When you first create your logo, don’t worry about spending a lot of money on design. There are a number of online resources that can designnice-looking logosfor a fraction of the cost of a professional design firm.

    Related: 10 Tips to Go From Employee to Boss, From Franchisees Who Did It

    Make sure you can trademark your name

    Perhaps the most critical aspect of choosing a name is being sure the name you choose can be trademarked before you invest any time or effort in promoting it. Burger King, for example, operates in Australia under the name Hungry Jack’s because of a similar trademark problem.

    In the U.S., a quick search of the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website can tell you whether or not a name is trademarked.

    Caveats with trademarking

    Even though you can search TESS to see if your name is available, this method is not without its flaws. If, for example, you searched “MacDowell’s” as a possible name for your hamburger restaurant, the TESS search would come up empty—but the USPTO might still reject your trademark if it felt the similarity to McDonald’s might confuse consumers.

    On the flip side, the mere existence of a competing name may not preclude you from getting a trademark either. Trademarks are registered based on various classes in the USPTO’s classification system. There are a total of 45 different classes—34 representing product classes and 11 representing service classes. So the fact that you have the same name as another trademark owner is not necessarily a deal killer if you’re in different classes. No one is likely to confuse an Ace Bandage with Ace Hardware.

    Related: Franchise Ownership Made Easy: Best Practices for Managing and Growing Your Business

    Trademarking is not always worth it

    If you were operating as “Joe’s Pizza,” and you felt you could trademark the name, you should consider whether that name is more trouble than it is worth. If you searched Google and found 10,000 different Joe’s Pizza Parlors (or similar names), all those businesses would have prior rights to the name. So even if you could get the trademark, you would have 10,000 businesses “infringing” on it—and legally, they would have every right to continue to operate under the brand.

    Seek advice from counsel

    Once you have narrowed down your list of potential names, it’s imperative to get the input of trademark counsel on your top choice before you finalize your decision. The cost of obtaining an uncontested trademark, even when using an attorney to file the paperwork, is minimal when compared to the cost of having to rebrand your business at some point in the future.

    Pro tip: When deciding to file your trademark, do so at the federal level (not the state level). That will give you the broadest rights.

    You’ve filed… what next?

    Once you file, the USPTO will assign an examining attorney to review your mark. At that point, your application could be rejected (which you can appeal), or it can move through the process of publication—where your application is listed in the Official Gazette published weekly by the USPTO. If no one objects to your mark within 30 days (and remember, trademark attorneys religiously scan the Official Gazette on behalf of their clients), you go to the next step, and your trademark is registered.

    If your mark is uncontested, the process can take six months to a year or more. But you can go ahead during that time and start your business under your chosen name—as long as your trademark attorney feels comfortable that you’re likely to obtain the mark. Once they’ve given you the go-ahead, you can begin developing your look and feel—which will be communicated to the public through your logo.

    Related: Considering franchise ownership? Get started now and take this quiz to find your personalized list of franchises that match your lifestyle, interests and budget.

    Get started with The Multiplier Model

    Going from small business to successful startup to scalable growth takes more than just good luck. It takes a system. Over the last 34 years, franchising consultant and growth expert Mark Siebert has been sought out by more than 70,000 executives looking to expand their companies. Out of those 70,000, only 5,000 had the right systems in place to go from successful to scalable. In The Multiplier Model, Siebert discusses the factors that determine if an entrepreneur is ready to scale their venture — and the best ways to get started. Read more.

    [ad_2]

    Entrepreneur Staff

    Source link

  • ‘Taco Tuesday’ is for everyone, argues Taco Bell. Taco John’s says it owns the trademark to the phrase.

    ‘Taco Tuesday’ is for everyone, argues Taco Bell. Taco John’s says it owns the trademark to the phrase.

    [ad_1]

    CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Declaring a mission to liberate “Taco Tuesday” for all, Taco Bell is asking U.S. regulators to force Wyoming-based Taco John’s to abandon its longstanding claim to the trademark.

    Too many businesses and others refer to “Taco Tuesday” for Taco John’s to be able to have exclusive rights to the phrase, Taco Bell asserts in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filing that is, of course, dated Tuesday.

    It’s the latest development in a long-running beef over “Taco Tuesday” that even included NBA star LeBron James making an unsuccessful attempt to claim the trademark in 2019.

    “Taco Bell believes ‘Taco Tuesday’ is critical to everyone’s Tuesday. To deprive anyone of saying ‘Taco Tuesday’ — be it Taco Bell or anyone who provides tacos to the world — is like depriving the world of sunshine itself,” the Taco Bell filing reads.

    A key question is whether “Taco Tuesday” over the years has succumbed to “genericide,” New York trademark lawyer Emily Poler said. That’s the term for when a word or phrase become so widely used for similar products — or in this case, sales promotions — they’re no longer associated with the trademark holder.

    Well-known examples of genericide victims include “cellophane,” “escalator” and “trampoline.”

    “Basically what this is about is you cannot trademark something that is ‘generic,’ ” Poler said. “That means it doesn’t have any association with that particular source or product.”

    Basketball legend James — a well-known taco lover — encountered this problem when he tried to trademark “Taco Tuesday” in 2019. The Patent and Trademark Office, in a ruling that didn’t refer to Taco John’s, deemed “Taco Tuesday” too much of a “commonplace term” to qualify as a trademark.

    With more than 7,200 locations in the U.S. and internationally, Taco Bell — a Yum Brands
    YUM,
    -2.45%

    chain along with Pizza Hut, KFC and the Habit Burger Grill — is vastly bigger than Cheyenne-based Taco John’s. Begun as a food truck more than 50 years ago, Taco John’s now has about 370 locations in 23 mainly in western and midwestern states.

    The chain’s size hasn’t discouraged big-time enforcement of “Taco Tuesday” as trademark, which dates to the 1980s. In 2019, the company sent a letter to a brewery just five blocks from its corporate headquarters, warning it to stop using “Taco Tuesday” to promote a taco truck parked outside on Tuesdays.

    Actively defending a trademark is required to maintain claim to it, and the letter was just one example of Taco John’s telling restaurants far and wide to stop having “Taco Tuesdays.”

    Taco John’s responded to Taco Bell’s filing by announcing a new two-week Taco Tuesday promotion, with a large side of riposte.

    Press release: Ring the Bell! Every Day is Taco Tuesday® at Taco John’s

    “I’d like to thank our worthy competitors at Taco Bell for reminding everyone that Taco Tuesday is best celebrated at Taco John’s,” CEO Jim Creel said in an emailed statement. “We love celebrating Taco Tuesday with taco lovers everywhere, and we even want to offer a special invitation to fans of Taco Bell to liberate themselves by coming by to see how flavorful and bold tacos can be at Taco John’s all month long.”

    The filing is one of two from Taco Bell involving “Taco Tuesday.” One contests Taco John’s claim to “Taco Tuesday” in 49 states, while a similar filing contests a New Jersey restaurant and bar’s claim to “Taco Tuesday” in that state. Both Taco John’s and Gregory’s Restaurant and Bar in Somers Point, N.J., have been using “Taco Tuesday” for over 40 years.

    A Taco John’s franchisee in Minnesota first came up with “Taco Twosday” to promote two tacos for 99 cents on a slow day of the week, Creel told the Associated Press in a recent interview.

    The Patent and Trademark Office approved the Taco John’s “Taco Tuesday” trademark in 1989. Even with its many letters, Creel said, the company — established in 1969 in Cheyenne, Wyo. — has never had to go to court over the phrase.

    He’s not feeling too picked on, either, by the much bigger Taco Bell. “It’s OK. It’s kind of nice that they’ve noticed,” Creel said.

    From the archives (January 2022): Taco Bell takes taco subscription program nationwide

    [ad_2]

    Source link