Tag Archives: trademark

Congratulations to Arx Pax Labs, Inc.

Ramey & Schwaller would like to congratulate its client Arx Pax Labs, Inc. on registration of the mark HENDO HOVER as Registration Number 5,134,102  on January 31, 2017.  The trademark is for hovering vehicles and hovering apparatuses for locomotion by electromagnetic levitation, namely, levitating boards for personal transportation purposes, hovering platforms, remote-controlled hovering platforms, unmanned hovering platforms, unmanned drones, unmanned remote controlled drones, and remote controlled unmanned hovering platforms; hover hobby kits for constructing hovering vehicles and hovering apparatuses for locomotion by electromagnetic levitation comprising hover engines, hover surface material, mounting structure for engines, and engine controllers, sold as a unit.

Ramey & Schwaller is a full-service intellectual property law firm working with an international client base from our Houston, Texas office.  We are dedicated to enhancing client results through efficient practice management, innovative technologies and the use of skilled professionals.

Congratulations to Texas Children’s Hospital

Ramey & Schwaller wishes to congratulate its client Texas Children’s Hospital on registration of the mark TEXAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL as Registration Number 5,258,787 on August 8, 2017.  The mark consists of a design comprised of a solid circle centered above three upwardly angled or curved lines of increasing length centered above the words “TEXAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL” with the words “TEXAS CHILDREN’S” on the first line stacked above the word “HOSPITAL” on the bottom line.

Ramey & Schwaller is a full-service intellectual property law firm working with an international client based from our Houston, Texas office.  We are dedicated to enhancing client results through efficient practice management, innovative technologies and the use of skilled professionals.

 

Congratulations to Arx Pax Labs, Inc

Ramey & Schwaller wishes o congratulate its client Arx Pax Labs, Inc  on registration of the mark ARX PAX as Registration Number 5,151,631 on February 28, 2017. The trademark is for an on-line retail store featuring hovering items, namely, levitating boards for personal transportation purposes, hover hobby kits, hovering platforms, remote-controlled hovering platforms, unmanned hovering platforms, unmanned drones, and remote controlled unmanned hovering platforms.

Ramey & Schwaller is a full-service intellectual property law firm working with an international client base from its Houston, Texas office. We are dedicated to enhancing client results through efficient practice management, innovative technologies and the use of skilled professionals.

Schwaller Article in AIPLA Patent Law Committee Newsletter

Melissa Schwaller’s article titled “Effect of the Date of the First Use in Commerce on Patent Validity Under the On Sale Bar/Public Use Bar” appeared in the October 2015 American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Patent Law Committee Newsletter. The article discusses whether the date listed for the first use in commerce in a trademark application that is earlier than one year before the filing of the patent application affects the validity of the patent under the on sale bar/public use bar on a good or service covered by the mark and patent claims.

Washington Redskins Trademarks Cancelled as Disparaging to Native Americans

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has cancelled the Redskins trademark registration.  The decision can be found here at http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ under Proceeding No. 92046185.  A petition was filed in August 2006 by six Native Americans (Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs, Phillip Gover, Shquanebin Lone-Bentley, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh) to cancel six trademarks owned by Pro Football, Inc.  Pro Football, Inc. does business as The Washington Redskins.[1] Proceedings in Blackhorse et al. v. Pro Football, Inc. were suspended pending the outcome of the Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. case, infra.[2]  The proceedings resumed in March 2010.[3]

The marks were REDSKINETTES (typeset word(s)), REDSKINS (typeset word(s)), THE REDSKINS (drawing which includes word(s)), WASHINGTON REDSKINS (drawing which includes word(s)), WASHINGTON REDSKINS (typeset word(s)), and THE REDSKINS (drawing which includes word(s) in stylized form).[4] The registrations for the marks above were issued in 1990, 1978, 1974, 1974, 1974, and 1967 respectively.[5]

In its decision, the TTAB stated “these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).”[6]

The Board applied a two-step analysis in finding that the marks were disparaging.  The steps are: “a. What is the meaning of the matter in question, as it appears in the marks and as those marks are used in connection with the goods and services identified in the registrations?” and “b. Is the meaning of the marks one that may disparage Native Americans?”[7] The Board found that the Pro Football, Inc.’s alleged honorable intent and manner of use do not contribute to the determination of whether the term is disparaging.[8] The record established that at least thirty percent of Native Americans found REDSKINS used in connection with Pro Football, Inc.’s services to be disparaging at the time they were registered.[9] The Board found this number to be substantial.[10]

The Board found that Pro Football’s laches defense does not apply 1) when plaintiffs simply comprise one or more members of a group to which the disparagement relates and 2) where a broader public policy is concerned.[11]

This is not the first time a group of Native Americans have filed a petition to cancel the Redskin marks. In Harjo v. Pro Football, a petition for cancellation was filed in 1992.  The Board held that the marks were disparaging to Native Americans when registered and ordered the registrations cancelled.[12]  Pro Football, Inc. appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  The District Court reversed the Board on the grounds of laches and a lack of substantial evidence supporting the finding of disparagement.[13]  The Appeals Court remanded the case to the District Court regarding one of the Native American’s claims was barred by laches.[14]  The District Court found that the claim was barred by laches.[15] The issue of whether there was substantial evidence supporting the finding of disparagement was left unresolved.[16]  Upon another appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the District Court on laches in 2009.[17]

The TTAB’s decision only affects the right of Pro Football, Inc. to have a federal registration on the marks listed above.  It does not have jurisdiction to prevent Pro Football, Inc. from using the marks.  However, without a trademark registration, Pro Football, Inc. cannot file a suit in federal court for trademark infringement or stop infringing goods bearing the marks from entering the United States.

The TTAB’s decision to cancel the marks can be appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit due to a venue change in the America Invents Act.[18]  Pro Football, Inc. is allowed to keep its registrations during the appeal process.  In the event an Appeals Court affirms the TTAB decision to cancel the marks in question, Pro Football, Inc. may still assert common law trademark rights for the marks.

 

[1] Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation No. 92046185 at 1-4 (June 18, 2014).

[2] Id. at 7 (June 18, 2014).

[3] Id.

[4] Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation No. 92046185 at 2-4 (June 18, 2014); U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 1606810, 1085092, 987127, 986668, 978824, and 836122 respectively.

[5] Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation No. 92046185 at 2-4 (June 18, 2014).

[6] Id. at 2 (June 18, 2014).

[7] Id. at 15 (June 18, 2014).

[8] Id. at 23-24 (June 18, 2014).

[9] Id. at 71-72 (June 18, 2014).

[10] Id. at 71-72 (June 18, 2014).

[11] Id. at 74-76 (June 18, 2014).

[12] Id. at 5 (June 18, 2014) citing Harjo v. Pro Football, Inc., 30 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (TTAB 1994) and 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999).

[13] Id. at 5 (June 18, 2014) citing Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003).

[14] Id. at 6 (June 18, 2014) citing Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44 (D.D. Cir. 2005).

[15] Id. at 6 (June 18, 2014) citing Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 567 F. Supp.2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008).

[16] Id. at 6 (June 18, 2014).

[17] Id. at 6 (June 18, 2014) citing Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 565 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

[18] Id. at 74 (June 18, 2014).

Opposer Texas Children’s Hospital Prevails at TTAB over Applicant U.T. Physicians

On June 16, 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board handed Ramey & Browning client Texas Children’s Hospital a decisive win when the opposition of U.T. Physicians trademark application for Texas Fetal Center was sustained over Texas Children’s Hospital’s Trademark for Texas Children’s Fetal Center.  The opposition was terminated in TCH’s favor when U.T. Physicians abandoned its attempt to register its trademark for the Texas Fetal Center.