Mission(s) to Mars

As always, whenever I see something IP related (do I need to link to that post yet again?), I tend to take note. About half the time, I look up whatever I saw later. 

So of course when I was reading a book from Fondren's excellent leisure reads collection (which may look small but those books aren't discarded later, they just relocate--so Fondy has LOTS of fun books), and I saw a trademark disclaimer at the start, I could not help but want to learn more. Here's an image:

Disclaimer straight from the book

For context, the book is Girlfriend on Mars by Deborah Willis. If you want to read it, I should have it back to Fondy by Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm plowing through print books lately on the offhand chance that the light from screens is affecting my sleep. I don't stay up playing games or watching videos or scrolling through social media, I tend to stay up and read books, but they're on my iPad. When I started having a hard time reading print because it gets dark and the text is small, I defaulted to that option. 

Sorry, that was much more information about my personal reading habits than necessary.

Back to the disclaimer. The book uses a fictitious company and endeavor called "MarsNow", which bears some resemblance to other commercial space efforts owned by billionaires in the real world, but is not related to the real registered Mars Now trademarks. And there are two that my brief search of the USPTO trademark database found, and two more in the WIPO Global Brand Database. 

Marsnow, no. 5031834, the mark registered to Chen Yong jun of China, is just a simple word mark and fora variety of clothing, mostly sports wear. It also has an international entry but is only registered in the US.

Also in the USPTO database is #MarsNow, which is dead, abandoned, never registered, from 2017, for t-shirts, and submitted by the Tee Party Company. I think it wasn't a strong application. Cool specimen, though. 

Specimen photograph from the TSDR files for #MarsNow

There is also a Marsnow registered in South Korea, which was submitted in 2013. It is now dead, the protection ending in November 2023. I am uncertain what it is for (my Korean is nonexistent), other than "electrical and scientific apparatus", which is the given international class for its goods. 

Finally, there is the last Marsnow, registered in India in 2019. It is protected through 2029, and also class 9, but this one includes more specifications. The record claims primarily mobile accessories for phones and Bluetooth equipment. Unlike all other other Marsnow, it has a cool logo and isn't just a basic word mark.

Intellectual Property India, registration no. 4185381

Well, I guess that's Marsnow. MarsNow. I don't think I would have confused any of those with the fictitious company, but I suppose CYA is important.

Different Squishes?! Squishmallows vs. Squishables

If you read my previous post, you might recall that I mentioned Squishmallows, which are immensely popular plushes (see recent O-Week themes). As it turns out, during my writing process, I confused Squishmallows with Squishables, which are a similar product from a different company. In an initial draft I linked to the wrong website, and was uncertain why the exact PSL plush I was looking for didn't appear. Thankfully, a more knowledgeable friend helped me find the correct reference and website.

This got me thinking about the IP aspects of the squishies, in particular trademarks. Since these companies are almost certainly in direct competition, it makes sense that they would want to protect their products when possible.

This is a Squishmallow

This one is a Squishable

I clearly do not know the difference between them, since I had no idea they were different products. But perhaps learning about IP will help me! Besides, I could really use some practice with the New Trademark Search.

Oh my gosh are there a LOT of registered marks for Squishmallows! Just the word mark alone has some 27 registrations. Of those, two are for the actual plush toys, nos. 5454574 and 6457232. There is another in the application process, serial no. 97735837, but it's not associated with the same company. None of the marks with plush goods have a specific appearance. Those are either for games or Christmas ornaments (serial nos. 90676140 and 90676105) but they include the word "original".

Serial no. 90676105, but not for the plush

Serial no. 90676140, also not for plush

One Squishmallow mark that is kind of an image and for plush toys is Squishmail (also a word mark under a different serial number). Unfortunately, the Squishmails do not have a promising future, as the company that owns Squishmallows, Kelly Toys, is appealing a final refusal for registration. It worked out in other jurisdictions, as the TSDR record shows an international registration, no. 1652225 (same for the word mark).

I have no idea what this is, but its cute

Squishables has their own set of trademarks, if fewer. They've protected certain aspects of different plush toy lines, which I found interesting. For example, Squishable GO! (registration no. 6580804) is specifically for vehicles like dump trucks, fire trucks, or trains. 

For your vehicular plush

These seem made to appeal to a very young audience, which contrasts with other Squishables that are likely to appeal to only adults or near adults. What plush might that be, you ask?

Well, one is the line of Boozy Buds, which has both the basic word mark (registration no. 6457777) and a design version (registration no. 6457778), and consists of plush alcoholic beverages. 

A Boozy Bud, probably a Bloody Mary

The actual trademarked Boozy Buds design

Another is The Mysterious Doctor Plague line, which also has a basic word mark (registration no. 6457715) and a designed word mark (registration no. 6457716).

This specimen displays both the trademarked font design and the relevant plush

Both of those are clearly intended for a more mature audience.

Of course, the trademark doesn't stop Squishmallows from making their own plague doctor plush; I heard that it came out after the Squishable version. It just stops them from infringing on the use of the word mark or the designed words in reference to plush toys. Since this one is named Aldron the Plague Doctor, it seems to go unchallenged.

Finally, it appears that Squishables were around first. Or their trademarks were filed first--to the best of my searching knowledge. More research into the companies and dead trademarks would be required.

In conclusion, I've learned a lot about the extensive number of Squishie registrations, but I didn't learn much about how they're different--but I can tell the names apart now and I definitely understand the different parent companies. Just don't ask me to buy a specific plush, I'm sure I'd mess that up.

Perhaps I should take a look at design patents? Hmmm...

'Tis the (Pumpkin Spice) Season

Ah, pumpkin spice! Every fall, this flavor takes over everything, growing annually from fairly humble beginnings. Pumpkin spice has gone from flavoring the original pumpkin spice latte (PSL) to a wide range of food and beverages, even appearing on cleaners, cosmetics, and more. There's a Squishmallow Pumpkin Spice Latte (Squishmallows are large, squishy, adorable stuffed... well, not animals in this case).

Squishmallows: tasty, very round plush

But does anyone own pumpkin spice? Or some aspects of it?

Yes. There are lots of owned instances of pumpkin spice. A very basic search of the USPTO's newly released beta Trademark Search shows 32 results. Many are dead or abandoned; 9 are not immediately obvious matches; and the use of pumpkin spice varies for types of products and how much of the mark it comprises. I, for one, am glad that someone has decided to abandon some kind of pumpkin spice athletic or sports event service; it sounds like a bad pairing.

WHY?? Who thought it was a good idea?!

Among the pumpkin spice lawyers, martinis, cappuccinos, muffins, ales, armies and milks, I first found a single instance of a registered pumpkin spice latte. And yet, it's for bar soaps. I suppose the pumpkin spice alone wasn't enough, they needed to add a little milk and coffee to the mix for a truly pleasing bar soap... flavor? Read more about this particular instance in the TSDR entry for registration no. 6,468,895. 

Delicious, delicious soap

The next closest was the Pumpkin Spice Latte Run. It's not quite the same as a pumpkin spice athletic event, but it still brought up a few questions. For example, how popular is a running event related to pumpkin spice lattes? After I drink a PSL, I am in no mood to go running, it's a dessert drink. Even if you run before having the beverage, the pairing still makes little sense to me.

Don't drink dessert and dash

A little further investigation reveals that the purpose is to register for the event, run any 5K, and then earn some rewards, which are all PSL related. If you've ever participated in a PSL Run, you'll have to explain it to me in the comments.

...And that's it. I'm honestly a little disappointed to learn that there is so little ownership of PSL on the trademarks side of things. Perhaps I should have looked more at patents, but I imagine that would be even less successful.

Enjoy your PSL while you can. I had a little PSL flavored creamer in my coffee this morning, which I never do, just to get psyched up for this blog entry. Perhaps I'll even splurge on some other PSL product. Recommend the best non-coffee confections!

My AI Replacement: Coming Soon?

Given the massive amount of attention OpenAI’s new chatbot, ChatGPT, has received (especially as a harbinger of the imminent AI takeover), I thought I'd test its performance as a PTRC representative. So, I spent a recent rainy afternoon formulating questions and interrogating ChatGPT's abilities. I was relieved to find my immediate replacement is not likely, but I should still watch my back.

ChatGPT generated fairly accurate, if brief, instructions on how to search for patents on Espacenet, with or without a given topic. 

Basic steps for searching with Espacenet

However, it has not yet learned about the USPTO’s Patent Public Search. When I asked for Patent Public Search Advanced instructions, I was directed to the WIPO. Though the instructions seemed fine, PATENTSCOPE and Patent Public Search were both misidentified.

Instructions for WIPO, not USPTO

I rephrased the question to stipulate a USPTO search tool, and was extremely reassured to find ChatGPT still thought PatFT and AppFT were available. I have a year's advancement beyond the AI. Of course, I took a moment to provide feedback and inform OpenAI that the answer was incorrect.

Wrong tools, right agency

ChatGPT is completely incapable of performing a patent search. When I requested both general and more specific patent searches, it responded with an unequivocal “No!” (if in more polite terms). Even when asked to find basic information on granted patents or patent data, like how many patents were issued to Rice University in 2022 (17), it could not answer.

CharGPT cannot provide patent data

I followed up with an easier search, asking for the grocery store nearest to Rice University, which caused several errors. Later, it managed to locate a Randalls—with the exact same address as Rice.

This is gratifying. I’ve been telling people for years that the searching abilities of librarians are irreplaceable, and AI has a very long way to go before it can try.

Following that, I changed topics, and asked general and specific questions about trademarks. I was surprised when ChatGPT immediately provided instructions for obtaining a trademark in Togo, the smallest country that first came to mind. Other basic questions, such as “Does Rice University have trademarks?” were also easily answered.

How to obtain a trademark in Togo

Questions about specific entities, trademarks, searching, or data were not possible. ChatGPT could not tell me what Rice’s first trademark was, or how many trademarks Rice University’s athletics department has. I anticipated as much from roughly similar types of patent queries.

ChatGPT is also uncertain about trademark data

Lawyers may be in bigger trouble than librarians. ChatGPT generated two fairly plausible examples of a patent content, one using its own example and one using mine. They were incomplete, and included substantial warnings about relying on an AI and the advisability of seeking legal counsel, but still composed some sections. I imagine an inventor could input enough information about a real innovation and receive a fairly helpful set of claims or descriptions.

The first part of an example patent document

Warning provided for all patent document examples

Next I asked for trademark applications, first with no information beyond brand name, and then with additional details like product and business location. The more details provided, the better the application--to an extent. The content was very generic and left many blank spaces to be filled, but it managed to correctly classify the product (athletic shoes, 25).

Example trademark application with less information

Example trademark application with more information

ChatGPT noticeably didn’t make any distinctions in application content for any IP office, and definitely did not consider type of mark or mark specifications. Again, similar to patents, it produced something that could guide a person struggling to write a trademark application.

I’ll keep an eye on it, though, and let everyone know when I’m being replaced by an online, open-source AI chatbot.