logo

Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.





Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


back

Trademark lawyers are out of their mind

We have seen, here or elsewhere, trademark suits that were silly, but this one takes the cake. Compare the two following logos:

Re/Max argues, according to this article that the rehava logo is too similar to its own. You may wonder how. Here is a quote from the Re/Max lawyer: First of all, both names start with "r" and have logos with accent lines near the letter "e". It goes beyond that. If you chop the top off of the 'h,' you (almost) have the 'm' in Re/Max. The next letter is an 'a,' and if you take the 'v' then you have half of an 'x'. I am not making this up... Nobody in their right mind would believe this, but apparently some lawyers believe they have a case. Or they found a small company to bully. In any case, it shows how trademark law is ill-conceived.


Comments

Seriously, and ignoring the merits or demerits of rehava compared to remax, since when has an opposition proceeding before the USPTO been deemed the equivalent of a lawsuit?

The opposition to registration of the rehava mark does seem a bit silly, but then again so is calling an opposition a suit.

Actually, I think Charles Zimmerman is way off base. Here is a perfectly legitimate USPTO function, opposition to a requested trademark. In fact, many anti-IP foes want EXACTLY the same thing for patents.

Real Estate Store has filed a request for the trademark, Remax is opposing. Under any reasonable legal system such oppositions should be allowable. Such oppositions are relatively inexpensive to fight and are business as usual for anyone involved in trademarks.

What is ill conceived is how someone can take a desirable feature of the USPTO, opposition, and somehow make out that an opposition proceeding is bad. Apparently, oppositions are no longer desirable either. Of course, once you uncork that genie, then companies like Coca-Cola would trademark everything under the sun. Just see what happens to the rest of the world when that happens.

Trademark law is probably the best conceived and least controversial portion of intellectual property laws. In fact, small business have SUCCESSFULLY argued that big companies should not be permitted to violate their established trademark.

Classic example: There was a Burger King in Mattoon, Illinois long before the Burger King chain planned to build a restaurant there. The small, independent Burger King filed suit and was successful in preventing the Burger King chain from confusing customers in Mattoon, Illinois. Small, independent businessman keeps giant behemoth from diluting his marketing power and name by using trademark law. Sounds like a well conceived system that works to me.

The opposition may be within the rules, but they still are crazy. To think that anyone would believe they really think anyone would confuse the two marks. Is there any point in what they are doing?

Perhaps it's just a mistake. Re/Max's CEO calls up his lawyer, "there's this company rehovo.com that's using a logo like ours. Do something about it." The lawyer, not having seen he logo himself, look's up the wrong company's logo, and then concocts some crazy story about similarity.

I have one similar story.

There is a trademark application SunSuds, and opposited by Unilever, because they have registered SUN, Sunlight, Sunsilk.

This will stop the creative idea for using Suds for a washing liquid. Everybody read SunSuds will give an image for healthy soap product, but Unilevers brand can not acheive that.

Beside of this, they have applied for 3 month extension of issuing the trademark (dated on 19/Dec, 2008). And, without any contact before, on 21rd, March, 2009, they phoned us in late afternoon for another 3 months extension. They told me if I am not allowed for extension, they will go to court, and I have to pay that in the end. We have been unfair treated. (3 months agains 3 days).

If anybody can help,support, or want to know more about this story, please contact me at li.qingxue@gmail.com

William:

I am not seeing an application for "SunSuds" trademark on the USPTO web site. What am I missing?

I like to request your help on this one. And please send your opinion. The headquarter office of Remax had been sending us a letter to stop using Max in our company name Carolina RealtyMax.Inc. Their attorney wrote us that Remax does not allow us to use Max in our company name because it confuses people of their Remax name. And that our name infringes their trademark rights. They also question us about our logo which is just a plain rectangular side with our company name inside it - no ballon. They also does not want us to use white, red and blue because they said it's their trademark colors. So, we are planning to change our colors to white, yellow and red in all our signs, letters, brochures, etc. However, this cost us money to do changes and we are just a small company with not much resources. Also, we are already approved with our trademark with North Carolina State Trademark Office in 2007. However, Remax said that they will challenge that. Most of our realtors are from different ethnic minority groups and are just parttimers to be able to augment their income from their jobs to help their families here and abroad. We have no plans to franchise our company. My husband and I open the company in 2000 when he was out of work because their company was shut down. I do not know why Remax singled us out when there are several real estate companies with Max in their company name. Example:

1. Orlando RealtyMax 2. Exit RealtyMax 3. RealtyMax, Inc. 4. REaltyMax GMAC 5. RealtyMax Corp. Remax attorney is writing us that we have infringed their trademark rights and that they will continue to pursue their position and they would seek reimbursement from us of attorneys' fees and costs as well as injunctive relief and monetary damages. Please help. Thanks. Puzzled

I like to request your help on this one. And please send your opinion. The headquarter office of Remax had been sending us a letter to stop using Max in our company name Carolina RealtyMax.Inc. Their attorney wrote us that Remax does not allow us to use Max in our company name because it confuses people of their Remax name. And that our name infringes their trademark rights. They also question us about our logo which is just a plain rectangular side with our company name inside it - no ballon. They also does not want us to use white, red and blue because they said it's their trademark colors. So, we are planning to change our colors to white, yellow and red in all our signs, letters, brochures, etc. However, this cost us money to do changes and we are just a small company with not much resources. Also, we are already approved with our trademark with North Carolina State Trademark Office in 2007. However, Remax said that they will challenge that. Most of our realtors are from different ethnic minority groups and are just parttimers to be able to augment their income from their jobs to help their families here and abroad. We have no plans to franchise our company. My husband and I open the company in 2000 when he was out of work because their company was shut down. I do not know why Remax singled us out when there are several real estate companies with Max in their company name. Example:

1. Orlando RealtyMax 2. Exit RealtyMax 3. RealtyMax, Inc. 4. REaltyMax GMAC 5. RealtyMax Corp. Remax attorney is writing us that we have infringed their trademark rights and that they will continue to pursue their position and they would seek reimbursement from us of attorneys' fees and costs as well as injunctive relief and monetary damages. Please help. Thanks. Puzzled

In any case, it shows how trademark law is ill-conceived. suplementos proteinas

Submit Comment

Blog Post

Name:

Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code
UnoTwoZeroTwo:


Post



   

Most Recent Comments

Claiming Countability Cancels Claims Creates a Cacophony of Cantankerous Counterexamples? Hi I have came across this platform called Saturo Global which does knowledge management in online

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Hi I have came across this platform called Saturo Global which does knowledge management in online

An analysis of patent trolls by a trademark lawyer Hi I have came across this platform called Saturo Global which does knowledge management in online

Killing people with patents Hi I have came across this platform called Saturo Global which does knowledge management in online

Dr. Who? Hi I have came across this platform called Saturo Global which does knowledge management in online

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece

Killing people with patents

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Subject Very controversial Gráfica em

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples