‘Double Dare’ and Lehman Brothers manufacturers survive abandonment assaults

July 21, 2022 – As a baby of the Nineteen Eighties, I grew up watching the children recreation present “Double Dare.” And having joined the workforce and began a 401(okay) in 2004, the Lehman Brothers identify at all times brings to thoughts the primary main financial occasion of my authorized profession. So, when these once-iconic manufacturers had been the main target of two current trademark choices, these choices piqued my curiosity. It seems, the authorized conflicts concerning these manufacturers had rather a lot in frequent.

A novel side of logos in comparison with different mental property varieties is a trademark’s theoretical capacity to have a vast length. In distinction, copyrights and patent rights have a finite length dictated by statute. Counterbalancing the opportunity of infinite length is that trademark rights can lapse at almost any time via nonuse or misuse. The lack of trademark rights via nonuse or misuse is known as “abandonment,” resulting in the succinct mantra of “use it or lose it” for trademark rights.

However there are limits to this mantra. As trademark scholar J. Thomas McCarthy wrote in his treatise, “[i]t will not be the regulation that ‘the slightest cessation of use causes a trademark to roll free, like a fumbled soccer, in order that it could be pounced on by any alert opponent.'”

Trademark abandonment is often at difficulty when a so-called newcomer selects a model identify that’s the similar as or just like a pre-existing model identify. If the prior rights proprietor both actively (via objection or opposition) or passively (via a blocking federal registration) interferes with the newcomer’s try to make use of or register its new or recycled model identify, the newcomer will usually use a declare of trademark abandonment as a defend in opposition to an infringement declare or a sword to get rid of the prior rights.

In different phrases, as a result of the winner of most trademark disputes involving the identical or related mark for a similar or associated items or companies is the “prior” person, the query of abandonment might be related to judge whether or not the “prior” use nonetheless has authorized impact, or if the once-prior person has moved to the again of the road.

Federal Trademark Act Part 45 defines trademark abandonment as discontinuing use of a mark paired with an intent to not resume use. As a result of the second component might be troublesome to show, Trademark Act Part 45 establishes that three consecutive years of nonuse is prima facie proof of abandonment. Notably, the proof essential to show bona fide use of a trademark to the satisfaction of a U.S. Trademark Workplace examiner will not be essentially the identical because the proof essential to show enough use of a trademark to a court docket or tribunal to keep away from abandonment of trademark rights.

Trademark disputes usually start with the Trademark Trial and Attraction Board, often known as the “TTAB.” The TTAB is a department of the U.S. Trademark Workplace that decides disputes concerning trademark functions and registrations however doesn’t resolve who can and can’t use a trademark.

This yr, the TTAB dominated on a trademark controversy involving a newcomer making an attempt to pounce on the Double Dare model. Shortly thereafter, the US Court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 2020 TTAB ruling involving a newcomer making an attempt to pounce on the Lehman Brothers model. These choices offered useful and attention-grabbing steering to model homeowners, significantly people who have chosen to part out problematic manufacturers or have skilled financial downturns affecting the long-term viability of their manufacturers.

From 1986 to 2000, new episodes of “Double Dare” had been aired. However from 2000 to 2018, the favored children recreation present primarily lived on via reruns, digital downloads, and periodic stay occasions. So, when the Double Dare model proprietor allowed its 20-year-old Double Dare service mark registration for manufacturing and distribution of a kids’s recreation present tv program to run out in 2009, the Double Dare trademark regarded accessible. In 2018, an unrelated newcomer utilized to register Double Dare for a kids’s tv present and related shopper items.

In January 2008, Lehman Brothers was a 158-year-old international monetary companies agency with over $600 billion in international belongings. By December 2008, Lehman Brothers was bankrupt, and its belongings, together with its logos, had been bought to a successor-in-interest. The successor-in-interest allowed its Lehman Brothers registrations to run out.

In 2013, an unrelated newcomer utilized to register Lehman Brothers as a trademark, not for monetary companies, however for alcoholic drinks. Shortly thereafter, the unaffiliated newcomer utilized to register Lehman Brothers as a service mark for restaurant and bar companies.

In each cases, the Trademark Workplace authorized the newcomer’s functions and revealed them within the Official Gazette. In each cases, the unique model proprietor, regardless of having allowed its federal trademark registrations to run out, opposed the functions with the TTAB.

In each proceedings, the newcomer alleged that the unique model proprietor had deserted its rights and that the trademark had develop into accessible. And in each proceedings, the unique model proprietor efficiently relied on non-abandoned common-law (unregistered) rights to keep up precedence in its mark and efficiently defeat the newcomer’s try to seize management of the once-popular model.

For the Double Dare model, the TTAB’s analysis was a one-step course of, evaluating precedence solely. The TTAB discovered that the unique Double Dare model proprietor’s use of the Double Dare model in “advanced codecs,” corresponding to digital downloads and periodic stay occasions, controverted nonuse and saved the Double Dare model unavailable for the newcomer. The newcomer has appealed the TTAB’s resolution to the US District Court docket for the Central District of California.

For the Lehman Brothers model, the TTAB’s analysis was a two-step course of, evaluating precedence first after which relatedness of the products and companies. Within the wake of chapter, the proof of ongoing use was minimal. The newcomer even argued that to the extent customers nonetheless acknowledged the Lehman Brothers model, the identify carried “dangerous will,” not goodwill, and subsequently the goodwill within the model had been deserted. However, there was some proof that Lehman Brothers continued to make use of its model identify, in a restricted method, inside signage, e mail signatures, net addresses, stories, correspondence, enterprise playing cards, company and regulatory filings, and legacy analysis supplies.

There was additionally proof that earlier than chapter, Lehman Brothers created promotional gadgets together with whisky decanters, wine reward units, wine books, wine carriers, and coasters, and that these promotional gadgets had been priceless collectibles on the secondary market. And so, the TTAB concluded, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, each that the unique model proprietor had not deserted its rights and that the Lehman Brothers mark was well-known sufficient and retained sufficient goodwill, together with for alcohol-related promotional gadgets, that customers would affiliate the usage of the Lehman Brothers model on whisky with the unique Lehman Brothers firm.

Along with inspecting the boundaries of abandonment, these twin choices function a reminder that trademark regulation is equitable and is meant to include ideas of equity. So, when newcomers unapologetically tried to undertake once-famous manufacturers, the TTAB was unsympathetic to the newcomers and reticent to seek out their manufacturers deserted and accessible to be scooped up like a fumbled soccer. On the similar time, they function an essential reminder that even when use of an essential mark wanes, it’s sometimes prudent for the model proprietor to stay vigilant and preserve not solely proof of any use and media consideration, however, if doable, its trademark registrations.

Joel Feldman is an everyday contributing columnist on trademark and copyright regulation for Reuters Authorized Information and Westlaw At this time.

Opinions expressed are these of the creator. They don’t replicate the views of Reuters Information, which, underneath the Belief Ideas, is dedicated to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. Westlaw At this time is owned by Thomson Reuters and operates independently of Reuters Information.