Articles Posted in Trademarks Issued

Indianapolis, IN – The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that a successor company’s continued use of a trademark created a genuine issue of fact as to whether the successor should be liable for a breach of contract by its predecessor. Attorneys for Zeise & Sons Excavating, Inc. of Crown Point,Indiana had sued Boyer Construction Group Corporation (“Group”) of Highland, Indiana in the Lake County Superior Court for breach of contract and had argued that Group should be liable for the breach by its predecessor company, Boyer Construction Corporation (“Corporation”), under theories of breaching the corporate veil of an alter ego corporation. Zeise also argued that Group should be liable under a theory of successor liability. The contract in question involved construction of a retail development. It was undisputed that Zeise had performed all of its obligations under the contract and that Corporation had failed to pay as provided by the contract. The Lake County Superior court had granted Group a partial summary judgment in favor of Group, finding neither of Zeise’s theories created liability for Group.

The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment. The court noted that a decision to pierce to corporate veil requires a fact-sensitive inquiry. The court noted that Zeise had presented numerous facts to support piercing the corporate veil, including continued use of trademarks, logos and website address. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that continued use of trademarks, logos and website address created issues of material fact regarding Ziese’s successor liability claim. The court, however, declined to issue a summary judgment in favor of Ziese. Rather, the court found that Ziese raised a genuine question of a material fact and therefore summary judgment was not appropriate. The case has been remanded for trial.

Practice Tip: When a company sells its assets to another company, it is important to remember intellectual property such as trademarks, patents and copyrights. Failure to document an assignment or license can result the “piercing the corporate veil,” and personal liability of the business owners.

Continue reading

 The US Trademark Office issued the following 140  trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March, 2012, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

TM Number Title
1 4,119,874 WORLD CLASS BEER VIEW
2 4,118,716 ON THE BUBBLE VIEW
3 4,118,715 HIT THE DECK VIEW
4 4,119,863 BRAND POSITION ANALYSIS VIEW
5 4,118,628 DISTINXION VIEW

 

Continue reading

The US Trademark Office issued the following 146 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January, 2012, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

 

Reg. Number Mark Click to View
1 4,089,821 PETSIT USA VIEW
2 4,092,607 THE SENDING CENTER VIEW
3 4,091,138 SUBSCRIBERS FANS AND FOLLOWERS VIEW
4 4,091,088 VIVACIT-E VIEW
5 4,090,901 VISITBLOOMINGTON.COM VIEW

Continue reading

Alexandria, VA – The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the US Trademark Office has reached a decision regarding the opposition of trademark registration filed by Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. of New York, New York against AFP Imaging Corporation of Elmsford, New York on trademark serial no. 77/492,131 for the mark ROLL-X registered with the US Trademark Office.

In 2008, AFP filed a trademark application with the US Trademark Office for the mark ROLL-X, with the product category of “x-ray tables for medical and dental use.” Rolex Watch filed an oppositionROLL-X.jpg to that registration, arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion between AFP’s products and the Rolex trademark that Rolex has used for many years and that the Rolex marks would likely be diluted by tarnishing or blurring of the marks. The opinion notes that Rolex’s trademarks state that their products are “watches, clocks, parts of watches and clocks, and their cases.” After considering all the statutory factors, the Board determined that Rolex had not demonstrated that AFP’s proposed trademark registration would result in dilution of Rolex’s trademarks.

Practice Tip: In considering whether a trademark application dilutes a prior mark by blurring, there are six factors to consider pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B)(i-vi). These are: the degree of similarity between the two marks, the degree of distinctness, the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in exclusive use, the degree of recognition of the famous mark, intent to create association with the famous mark, and finally, actual association with the famous mark.
Continue reading

The US Trademark Office issued the following 165 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in December, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

      Reg.   Number

Mark

Click to View
1 4,077,289 SF View
2 4,077,266 GATORADE SPORTS SCIENCE INSTITUTE View
3 4,077,214 IBMX View
4 4,077,149 {Design} View
5 4,077,054 FLEXWOOD View

Continue reading

 

The US Trademark Office issued the following 169  trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in November, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

Reg.Number  Mark Click to View
1 4,064,989 PRAYER CHAIR VIEW
2 4,064,974 WORLD’S LARGEST BMX STORE VIEW
3 4,064,973 THE BEST IN BMX VIEW
4 4,064,960 TRAUMA TECHNICIANS, LLC VIEW
5 4,063,223 WAITER ON THE WAY VIEW

Continue reading

 

The US Trademark Office issued the following 103 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

Reg. Number

Mark

Click to View
1 78,075,000 JOHN DILLINGER LIVE
2 78,146,072 SOFT FOCUS LIVE
3 78,100,577 DREAMS & CO. LIVE
4 78,150,292 FASHIONCODE LIVE
5 78,092,649 ALPHA WIRE CABLE DESIGN CENTER LIVE

Continue reading

 

The US Trademark Office issued the following 133 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

Reg. Number Mark Click to View
1 4,031,780 THE HOOSIER FARMER LIVE
2 4,032,934 CLASSKIT LIVE
3 4,031,704 SHORT CIRCUITS LIVE
4 4,031,695 VIRGINITY ROCKS LIVE
5 4,032,917 SMART POWER BLOCK LIVE

 

Continue reading

 

Washington, D.C. – The United States Patent and Trademark Office has launched a new web tool that shows that trademark application processing times are down to record lows. The average pendency to a first action on a new application is down to 2.7 months, while total pendency — defined as the average time from filing to registration, abandonment or notice of allowance — is at approximately 10.2 months. The USPTO’s Thumbnail image for USPTO.jpgData Visualization Center provides the most recent statistics. Online applications utilizing Trademark Electronic Application System plus (“TEAS plus”) are processed fastest on average. Over 70% of trademark applications are now filed electronically, the website reveals.

The USPTO offers a similar dashboard for patent processing times. The average total time a patent application takes to process is 33.5 months, according to the site. These tools are part of USPTO’s efforts to provide better visibility into trademark and patent application processes. The dashboards will be updated quarterly.

 

The US Trademark Office issued the following 164 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in August, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

Reg. Number

Mark

Click to View
1 4,015,515 SAMTEC VIEW
2 4,013,415 STEPS 2 ENROLL VIEW
3 4,017,421 INDIANA WHOLESALE DEALERS VIEW
4 4,017,397 WELCOME TO INDY NOW GO HOME VIEW
5 4,017,396 INDYSOCIALDIARY.COM VIEW

Continue reading

Contact Information