Swifties, it's your turn for IP

 It's not exactly news that Taylor Swift owns IP. In fact, she's a bit of an IP powerhouse. She owns the Swifties trademark, for example.

But what's new is her most recent filing, coming on the heels of what I've heard is a remarkable year for her. (Can you tell I don't really follow her? I know more about her IP than anything else. It's that curse, again.) She recently registered for a new mark, and fans and the media have been waiting with bated breath to learn what it might mean. 

"Female Rage: The Musical" was submitted for registration to the USPTO on May 11th, and holy cow does it have a LOT of associated goods and services! It lists classes 025, 026, 035, 009, 014, 015, 016, 018, 021, and 041, which means it covers clothing, cell phone accessories, retail store services, musical sound recordings, jewelry, guitar picks, writing journals, and beverage glasses, among hundreds more. I'm not even going to bother trying to list all of them, you can look it up yourself in the TSDR entry for it. 

So just what is in store? Clearly Taylor Swift has made a point to try to cover all of her bases with the new application. it might be a musical, since the final class listed is for musical entertainments. It probably isn't a tour name, since she's still on tour and her most recent album has a different name. Or maybe it's likea concert video she will release?

Honestly, I don't know, and I'm not sure I care. But a lot of other people care, and I try to be relevant. Maybe I'll look at her other trademarks another time, TAS Entertainment group is substantial.

Royal IP

There's been a lot in the media recently about Kate Middleton, Duchess and Princess of various locations (I could look it up but I don't want internet algorithms deciding I'm interested in royal family gossip). But did you know about Princess Kate IP?

If so, you shouldn't believe it belongs to her. A trademark--specifically a wordmark--was filed for "Princess Kate" in Nov. 2010 by Nieves & Nieves LLC. This New York-based company was seeking to sell various goods (including perfume, fashion accessories, and bedding) with that name, despite no connection to one very famous Princess Kate.

Although the filings denied that there was any implied connection to Kate Middleton, it is almost impossible to hear the phrase Princess Kate and not think of Kate Middleton, wife to Prince William. They're international celebrities and members of one of the few remaining European royal families.

Evidently, trademark examiners of the USPTO felt that was a significant enough issue to make the mark potentially misleading, and that it identified a living person who did not consent to its use. I imagine that Kate Middleton, had she been aware of the mark, would also have objected to its use. 

It's Cambridge, I think I did actually know that

No approval? No live peoples' names!

The final dismissal, after numerous appeals, was made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in April of 2014. The company in question also failed to file a required brief within the permitted time window. Perhaps they chose to give up, rather than keep fighting this battle.

You can find all of the relevant files and information on the dead "Princess Kate" mark at this TSDR link. And while it isn't as interesting to conspiracy theorists and scandal rags, I think it's a very interesting IP/trademark case that illustrates an intent to deceive fairly well.

Cheese Doodle Day!

As it is evidently Cheese Doodle Day today (March 5th), a post about some cheese doodle/curl IP seems appropriate. This could be an easy, minimally-researched post, too, if I relied upon Cheetos. But I won't cheet (ha, ha) you like that. I'll give you a fully-researched product!

However, I want to first acknowledge at least one Cheetos trademark, because it would be remiss of me to completely skip the most famous of cheesy puff snacks. Here's one of the trademarks for the illustrated form of the name Cheetos, owned by Frito-Lay, registration no. 2680627. Did you know that name was first used in commerce in 1948?

Mmm, delicious corn product coated in orange powdered cheese product

Obviously there are many more cheese curls on the market, varying in quality and deliciousness. One such example are the Bon Ton Cheese Curlies, word mark, registration no. 1955350. I don't know this brand, but they are one of the first results when you search the USPTO's database for cheese curls.

Please note this product's very distinct monkey mascot clearly not based on another cheesy snack

But don't forget your pseudo marks! Cheez Doodles, word mark, registration no. 644839, very specifically lists cheese flavored corn curls as its associated good, whereas Bon Ton Cheese Curlies are for the broader corn based snack foods, and Cheetos are for the slightly more detailed corn-based snack foods, namely, puffed corn snacks. It's interesting those two don't mention cheese; perhaps it is to allow some wiggle room for additional flavoring options. 

25 cents?! These must be a cheeper (ha, ha, sorry) and lower quality variety

What about other forms of IP? I bet there are many copyrights for packaging design. After all, that can fall under the purview of copyright rather than trademark or design patents. 

Nonetheless, I think patents would be more interesting. We got to look at some packaging above in the format of specimens, and the copyright registration database doesn't come with images or examples. Also, it sounds like it might be a challenge to search for cheese curl technology without relying on a brand name, and if anyone loves a challenging search, it's a librarian. 

In case you're curious, my search query in Patent Public Search was (chee$2 adj (curl OR doodle or snack or p$2ff?) and corn) not cheek?. Fairly successful, not perfect. The best results are...

US 4,517,204: Reduced calorie puffed snack food products

US 11,589,595: Cheese toppings for baked snacks suitable for prebake application

 

US D609,878: Curved cracker

None of them are quite perfect, like I said, but there's definitely one that might apply to a reduced calorie Cheeto, and the other two certainly cite cheese puffs or cheese doodles.

Hooray for cheesy snack IP!

BONUS! Finger sheath patent--which specifically calls out cheese puffs:

If the Shoe Fits, IP It

Shoes are amazing. I mean, I really like shoes. I am a shoe person. If you work in Fondren, chances are you've noticed some of my (very impractical) shoes.

Just in case you were wondering about today's pair

In light of that, I cannot believe I've hardly spent any time on shoe IP! 

But, I attended a talk at the Rice Business school with Stuart Weitzman recently (I didn't win the raffle for custom boots and am still feeling pain), and it really inspired me to think about shoe IP. I even asked Mr. Weitzman about his IP, wondering if it was challenging to register his personal name for a trademark. He said it was no problem--which I didn't expect, but then, there probably weren't a lot of Stuart Weitzmans trying to register their names for fancy shoes. 

The thing is, I recall just staring into the window the the Stuart Weitzman store in the Galleria, ogling those shoes, when I was younger. It was the kind of store I didn't even have an excuse to go into, so I just stood outside and lusted after the display shoes, which were beyond impractical for a 13 year old. At the time, I was just coming into my unique shoe tendencies, which were inspired in no small part by the fact that I attended a uniformed school, where we had to wear tennis shoes most days and "dress" shoes on dress days. The "dress" shoes were (for some unfathomable reason) Doc Martens, and every single girl in my grade always managed to have the exact same style of New Balances. But then I discovered that some athletic shoes also came with metallic striped colors. And Vans released a style that turned (in my case) pink in the sun. Once I found out I didn't have to wear plain athletic shoes to meet the standards of a uniform, my life's work of finding unique shoes began. Athletic shoes in pink suede with faux fur? Check. Throwback Roos complete with zippered pocket and neon colors? Check. Buckled mules with wooden soles? Check. My grandmother's vintage Uggs (about four sizes too large), before they got popular years later? Check. Bright orange patent leather flat platforms? Check. High heels on sparkly flip flops? CHECK!

As an adult, the world of shoes only grew wider. And in celebration of how much fun shoes are, and how they can come in any imaginable variety today thanks to designers like Stuart Weitzman, let's explore some IP.

We really must start with Mr. Weitzman's trademark, since it inspired this whole entry. Now, there are many registered marks under that name, for a variety of goods and services. But what we want most are shoe-related marks. A number are the word mark Stuart Weitzman, for "retail store services featuring shoes" and etc. Like, 3 live ones: 2749908, 5110490, and 4971730. The trademark registration number for just shoes as a good is 1386002, dating back to 1985. 

Two others stand out to me a little more. The first (registration no. 2571208) is for the word mark phrase "A LITTLE OBSESSED WITH SHOES", which is from an early advertising campaign that was brought up during his talk. It worked brilliantly, because it was a clever strategy to spread brand familiarity and even loyalty, rather than just a shoe. Unfortunately, I can't find an image from the earliest of these, but I have shared below the images used as specimens in the TSDR.

I understand this one not at all

But note the bottom left: a little obsessed with shoes

Secondly, there's the registration for the architectural design of his stores. Apparently, this unique look by the famous Zaha Hadid helped him achieve new markets. It's also a good reminder that IP goes beyond logos and brand names, and into the overall branding strategy. 3797782 is for trade dress, a niche sort of service mark. 

A registered retail store appearance

I hope Mr. Weitzman forgives me for my poorly worded question, and for drooling on his store's windows decades ago. 

Luxury shoes aren't just for women or high fashion. Probably the most iconic, recognizable shoe today is an Air Jordan. It is equally acceptable for a man to collect and covet shoes when it comes to this brand, whereas one might otherwise (at least in certain age and social groups) face some scrutiny or censure. 

The currently active word mark "Air Jordan" was first registered in 1985, no. 1370283. It does not claim any color, style, etc., just the characters, and is for footwear and athletic clothing. Michael Jordan might have been long remembered for his basketball career, but this brand (actually owned by Nike) has made him truly immortal. 

Who doesn't know this?

My first thoughts when I think of the brand are of the jumping silhouette imposed on the words Air Jordan, but surprisingly that is not a registered mark and never was. Issued serial no. 74041037 in 1990, this combo word and design trademark was marked abandoned and finally invalidated in Nov. 1994.

I don't know this

I clearly don't keep up with this brand, since they've been using registration no. 3725535 trademark design since 2009. It's incomprehensible to me, unless they're trying to move away from Michael Jordan as a person. Those jumps were famous. Perhaps with time, they assume that reputation has faded, or that the Nike swoosh (too many registrations to list) is branding enough. Or perhaps they just want to use it without having to manage it as a trademark, since it still shows up in a substantial number of their specimen photos.

Why yes, they did select something out of date for a specimen

In my defense, their specimen for the word mark has the silhouette, and so does the small icon on the Wikipedia brief. So there.

Why would they abandon this? To move away from the Jordan person?

Want another shocking piece of shoe trademark info? Louboutin (a brand of shoe as swoon-worthy as Stuart Weitzman's) does not own that specific color of red as applied to the sole of a shoe. At least, not in the U.S. You can see on the TSDR record that it is registered in France. 

I'd like to move away from trademarks, though, and look at a few design patents. Mr. Weitzman mentioned design patents when I asked my (poorly phrased) question. He seemed dismissive, but I notice a few brands rely quite heavily on them.

First, Nike was probably the frequent assignee I found in my search. Here's an example of one that might relate to Air Jordans, US D1,004,270.

Could be Air Jordans, or it could just be citing them

Another designer name I notices, if not as often as Nike, was J. Choo. Jimmy Choo makes some very nice shoes; that's a brand up there with Weitzman and the likes of Louboutin. Even Terry Pratchett knows they're good shoes (if ever an author wrote some great librarians, it was Sir Pratchett--and I don't just mean The Librarian). This is a fancy shoe. To see the color version of the photo, visit this link.

Almost has a early 1900s feel

And finally, because not everything in life is about fancy shoes, here's a patented Crocs design. I've never owned a pair of Crocs, but I'm aware of their popularity, and that everyone wants to copy them. This version won't be duped! Thanks, US patent D1,001,431.

Don't copy these

With that, I need to stop looking at shoes. I already went shoe shopping and bought another pair thanks to these recent events. Just remember: if you like the shoe, it doesn't matter if it's fancy or expensive. What matters is if you can wear it and you like it! Fit isn't event that important if they're as good as the pair below, which are so cheap they don't even have a brand.

Too cheap for functional buckles, but still great

Hey Gummy Guy!

Well if gummy treats are going to be a big deal this football season, then we better know about gummy IP. 

Hey Gummy Guy! Whose products are you handing out? Trolli? Let's see what we can find.

We know that Trolli brand gummy worms are a big player in both the gummy world and Rice's football games. After all, he recently visited Fondren before a game with some giveaways in a very prominently marked bag. As expected, there are MANY marks registered for Trolli, some for the candy itself, others for various marketing accoutrements like lip balm, clothing, backpacks, and other apparel. Though there seems to be more than one Trolli confection company, the mark that stands out most is designed word mark, familiar from recent video shots. It was submitted for examination, serial no. 97711266, only just this September--though I know I've seen it in years past. Perhaps the actual appearance of the name Trolli was not previously considered important enough to register. 

Currently being examined for federal registration, but...

However, based on investigation of some of the other registered Trolli candy marks, that may be due to some recent changes in ownership or licensing. Another word mark, no design included, with registration no. 1285440, was first registered in 1984 and includes a specimen that contains a recognizable element:  

I see you, Trolli, and  your registered symbol!

That's definitely a familiar font, just like the one above.

A third contender's specimen even has a package of some truly familiar gummies I believe we might have seen in the YouTube video linked above, under registration no. 2140788.

Technically, these are caterpillars, not worms

Fun fact:  There are still more companies that own this Trolli brand registrations. And they have the correct Trolli candy packaging appearance in their specimen files.

I'm uncertain who actually owns this brand and the candy name. All three of the registrations lead to different company names and locations. But they must all be related--or there would be a likelihood of confusion problem!

The parent company that has applied for the new word mark registration, Ferrara Candy Company, owns several patents.

The company name of Trolli did not find any assigned patents, and neither does the German firm, Willy Mederer KG, which owns the mark for registration no. 1285440.

Maybe there's a lot of licensing for the name, and many people create a product? After all, the patents for Ferrara are only for designs of candy appearances and some candy/display boxes.

Or maybe we should just enjoy our athletic gummy treats and not worry about relevant IP.

LOL! Yeah right, IP is clearly never far from our minds, right? 

...right?

I'm a Barbie Girl, in an IP World

Alright, let's hop on this Barbie bandwagon. Better late than never.

For those who might not know, Barbie has a lot of IP. Like, a truly impressive amount in multiple categories. Patents? Yep. Trademarks? Huge check. Copyright? You know it. Trade secrets? One can only assume.

That means this blog post will have to choose some small portion... We've looked at patents for most of the summer, so let's investigate the evolution of one of Barbie's trademarks.

A trademark for the name/designation Barbie, as applied to a doll, was first issued in 1964. It's been renewed multiple times since then, most recently in 2014. The first registration number was 0068905.

The TSDR record for the original Barbie mark

Of course, this does not include any specific text colors or appearance; that came later. The semi-cursive, pink script (that you're hopefully imagining) first appeared in the 1990s, much later than I thought. The registration certificate for mark no. 2110856 doesn't show it, but the mark is for white script on a pink background "and is lined for the color pink". Unfortunately, documentation available from the TSDR does not include more than the registration certificate, so no specimen or official color drawing is available to show here.

The image from reg. no. 2110856 certificate

According to the application, it was first used in 1992 for dolls, doll clothing and doll accessories. Mark no. 2110856 was registered in November, 1997 and cancelled in August of 2004. Evidently, it was cancelled because "registrant did not file an acceptable declaration under Section 8". This refers to Section 8 of the U.S. Code regulating trademarks. No documentation on the cancellation is available via TSDR, so further research would be required to learn more about the context.

There were several Barbie script marks submitted for registration in the 90s; two are still live, each renewed within the last ten years. Registration nos. 2087842 and 2639971 were filed in 1996 and 1998, and granted registration in 1997 and 2002 (both sets of dates respectively). 

Specimen image accompanying reg. no. 2087842

You've likely noticed 2087842 was filed around the same time as the cancelled 2110856; it is also used for the same goods (dolls, doll clothing and doll accessories). Color is not specified in the mark description.

2639971, however, is lined for pink like 2110856, but the goods associated are clothes, costumes, athletic wear, and other garments.

"Barbie" uses the trademarked script protected by reg. no. 2639971. But did Barbie really dump Ken?

Another dead mark, registration no. 2635578, has script similar to 2110856, without the lined cloud-shaped background or specified colors. Filed in 1997, it was registered in 2002, and cancelled in 2009. The associated goods were bath products and cosmetics intended for little girls.

Certificate image of the script for cancelled mark no. 2635578

In 2008, Mattel filed for another Barbie script mark, no color specified, again for goods that included dolls, their clothes and accessories, as well as several other types of toys and playthings. Registered in 2010, no. 3737763 was cancelled in 2016, once more under Section 8. To read the details on that, visit the TSDR page.

Certificate image of the script for cancelled mark no. 3737763

Finally, Mattel applied for one more Barbie script mark in 2021, published July 11, 2023. Serial no. 90509941 doesn't claim a specific color, but the goods associated are, unsurprisingly, dolls and toy figures. It is no stretch of the imagination to guess that this slightly altered script intentionally matches the style from the Barbie movie. 

Look familiar?

Just looking at the Barbie scripts should provide some indication of the amount of marks and other IP owned by Mattel for Barbie. Hundreds of word marks were sorted through to find this short list of specific scripts. The Barbie IP Empire is massive and generates billions in income.

BONUS: The first Barbie patent was not for the doll's design, but mostly for its construction that allowed it stand upright with the help of pins. Barbie was originally created with feet that couldn't support the doll. Evidently that's changed, but it was after I stopped regularly encountering them. 

"If my feet were shaped like this, I'd never wear heels!"

Intersecting Plant Patents and Trademarks

 

One of my primary hobbies is planning and working in my garden. One of my first decisions was to plant azaleas; I needed color and it feels like my civic duty as a Houstonianto have at least one. After researching my options, I selected Encore® Autumn Sunset™.

While I was working on my plant patent display (see last week’s blog post), I was both surprised and perplexed by lists of unrecognizable, unmarketable plant cultivar names in the Patent Full-Text and Image database (PatFT). I thought I should see more familiar names. If you’ve ever visited an aboretum or done some landscaping, you’ve likely noticed fun, playful plant names related to memorable characteristics and perhaps understand my confusion.

I expected to find Encore® azaleas instead of unrecognizable character strings (Image 1). No plant nursery or home improvement store I know carries ‘MNIHAR09’ azaleas. The same goes for crape myrtles; this fall, I purchased one called Dynamite® that I knew was patented. 

1. Azalea cultivars in the PatFT

  

Among the display’s patented plants, who ever heard of a ‘Whit III’ crape myrtle?

I also spent time scrolling through strawberry patents. (No joke: I bought a strawberry plant and wanted to find its patent.) While I’ve certianly seen Driscoll’s® berries in stores, and I’ve seen some given fanciful names (Image 2), never have those names included anything like ‘DrisStrawEighty’ (Image 3). I felt like I stepped into a parallel plant universe!

2. Strawberry names, https://www.careersatdriscolls.com/driscolls/berries/, accessed 3/22/2022

 

3. Unrecognizable strawberry names

 

And finally, I noticed that many of the patented plants given creative names tended to be from smaller nurseries, individuals, or older patents (Image 4). Why would those likely to have the strongest, most up-to-date marketing strategies neglect an obvious way to build recognition?

4. Older strawberry patent names

 

You may already have figured out what puzzled me for so many days, maybe due to the proper plant names’ crediting.

What I hadn’t noticed were the registered ® and trademark ™ symbols. I don’t know if it is because they’ve become so ubiquitous in commercial zones that I ignore them, but only towards the display’s completion did I finally take note.

It happened when I searched the Internet for more pictures of tentatively identified campus plants. I looked up the ‘Whit III’ crape myrtle. Everything clicked into place when a result identified ‘Whit III’ as Pink Velour®. Of course companies created different marketing names to trademark or register!

Think about it: plant patents are protected only 20 years from the filing date. Trademarks can be renewed as long as the mark continues to represent the goods or services originally indicated and remains in commerce. So ‘Whit III’ isn’t protected today by its patent filed in 1998. But the Pink Velour® crape myrtle has a protected word mark name, and widespread industry recognition. Someone may manage to breed a Pink Velour® crape myrtle, but could never market it with that recognizable name.

I've also learned more about the difference between patented and trademarked plant names since I first posted this entry, from University of Tennessee's Department of Plant Sciences "A Green Industry Guide to Plant Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights". There is a very delicate balance required to keep a plant's trademarked name; if it becomes known as the common name of a plant, a name may lose its status!   

Visit the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) site for PINK VELOUR® here.

See the TSDR sites for ENCORE® and ENCORE AZALEA® while you’re at it! 

 

DISCLAIMER: References to particular products, patents, trademarks, service marks, services, companies and/or organizations in this post are for illustrative or educational purposes only and do not constitute or imply endorsement by the Kelley Center, Fondren Library, Rice University or any of its affiliates.