The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has released its “ADVANCED PRACTICE TIPS FROM THE TTAB,” tips for the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB). It provides “an overview of operations with which those appearing before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) are most likely to interact.” The link is here: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/454850/TTAB%20Tips%202017%20Revised%20Feb.%207-1.pdf.
It was bound to happen that someone would take a swipe at Google, claiming that the registered trademark should be cancelled because people use the word as a verb in a “generic” and “indiscriminate” way, which constitutes “genericide.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the effort. Here is a synopsis of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, as posted by Justia:
“U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinions
Elliott v. Google, Inc.
Docket: 15-15809
Opinion Date: May 16, 2017
Judge: Richard C. Tallman
Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Internet Law, Trademark
A claim of genericness or “genericide,” where the public appropriates a trademark and uses it as a generic name for particular types of goods or services irrespective of its source, must be made with regard to a particular type of good or service. Plaintiffs petitioned for cancellation of the GOOGLE trademark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1064(3), based on the ground that it is generic. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Google, Inc., holding that plaintiffs failed to recognize that a claim of genericide must always relate to a particular type of good or service, and that plaintiffs erroneously assumed that verb use automatically constitutes generic use; the district court correctly framed its inquiry as whether the primary significance of the word “google” to the relevant public was as a generic name for internet search engines or as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular; the assumption that a majority of the public uses the verb “google” in a generic and indiscriminate sense, on its own, could not support a jury finding of genericide under the primary significance test; and plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence in this case to support a jury finding that the relevant public primarily understands the word “google” as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.
You can read the entire opinion here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/…/opini…/2017/05/16/15-15809.pdf.
Eric Goldman’s analysis can be found here: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/…/google-gets-big-ninth-circuit…
The Net Neutrality Rules have been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-obama-net-neutrality-142305055–finance.html?ref=gs. It appears that everyone on the Internet is going to get to be treated the same.
Most every business now has a website, among the purposes of which are to attract customers, disseminate information to attract customers and inform the population, provide the means for customers to purchase products and/or services, and to become better known as a credible expert in a chosen field, ultimately to attract customers. A brief survey of websites reveals some similarities, broken down into two categories: those with Terms of Use and Privacy Policies, and those without.
It may seem like a small thing, but the consequences of not having Terms of Use and Privacy Policies on the webpages may have serious repercussions. This is especially so when the website provides an opportunity for its visitors to leave Personal Identifiable Information (PII), such as an e-mail address, when subscribing to a blog; or name, address, telephone number, and credit card information when purchasing a product through eCommerce. California and Federal law each impose various requirements, and additional requirements are imposed when there is a likelihood that children 13 and under may visit the site. There are other areas that require compliance, such as rules promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding endorsements and testimonials, as well as misleading and deceptive advertising.
The Womens’ Economic Ventures (WEV) maintains an online library of webinars and other materials, including a webinar that the Matthew I. Berger Law Group presented on the Legalities of Websites. The following are the links that will begin the download of the files for the audio portion: http://wevonline.org/index.php/about-wev/learning-library/doc_download/352-legalities-of-web-sites, and the PDF file containing the slides: http://wevonline.org/index.php/about-wev/learning-library/doc_download/351-legalities-of-web-sites-pdf. If you would like to merely browse the library, click here: http://wevonline.org/index.php/about-wev/learning-library/cat_view/48-main-categories/49-thrive-in-five/37-webinars
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about the many areas of compliance for all aspects of eCommerce, the Internet, and websites. Our phone number is (805) 456-1200 You can find us on the web at www.mbergerlaw.com.
The Federal Trade Commission has issued rules regarding disclosures required for endorsements. As can be seen, these rules apply to Twitter tweets, as well as Facebook, individual websites, and the like. This article is very instructive and should be heeded by everyone who posts endorsements of products, investments, or services: http://www.martindale.com/labor-employment-law/article_Haynes-Boone….Endorsements on the Web.
Matthew I. Berger Law Group 