Applicants with Rhode Island addresses filed 172 applications to register trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during the fourth quarter of 2013. This represents a 17% decrease over the 208 trademark applications filed by Rhode Island owners during the fourth quarter of 2012, and a 27% decrease over the 235 trademark applications filed for the fourth quarter of 2011.
For the year, Rhode Island applicants filed 908 applications with the PTO. This represents a 14% decrease over the 1053 Rhode Island trademark applications filed in 2012, and a 19% decrease over the 1127 trademark applications filed by Rhode Islanders in 2011.
Nationally, the slight upward trend in filings continues. A total of 73,998 trademark applications were filed with the PTO in the fourth quarter of 2013, representing a 0.6 % increase over the 73,540 trademark applications filed in the fourth quarter of 2012. A total of 319,002 applications were filed with the PTO in 2013, representing a 1.2 % increase over the 315,375 applications filed during 2012.
The most likely explanation for the downward trend in filings in Rhode Island remains the sluggish economy in Rhode Island. Companies are watching budgets carefully and only filing where necessary to protect their major brands. Nationally, the economy is picking up, but the trend has not really been felt here yet.
The top five Rhode Island filers during October, November and December of 2013 are 3 consumer product companies, one financial services company and one educational institution. RBS Citizens Financial Group filed the largest number of applications among Rhode Island applicants with 27 filings. Providence College was next with 15 applications. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. was third with 10 applications, followed by Hasbro (8 filings) and Alex and Ani (7 filings).
For the year, the top Rhode Island filer was Hasbro with 61 applications. RBS Citizens Financial Group was next with 39 applications. CVS Pharmacy was third with 28 applications. Alex & Ani, The Big East Conference (now known as The American Athletic Conference), and Wizards of the Coast (a Hasbro subsidiary) each filed 27 applications.
Data supplied by PTO.
RI Trademark Filings Down 12.9% Through 3rd Quarter 2013 (October 18, 2013)
RI Trademark Filings Decrease 9% in First Half of 2013 (August 15, 2013)
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Monday, January 6, 2014
2013 turned out to be a typical year for new intellectual property (patent, trademark and copyright) case filings in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island. We got off to a fast start, with 10 new intellectual property case filings in the first six months of 2013 at the, 6 filings in June alone. But filings dropped dramatically in the second half of the year, with only 1 new trademark filing in the fourth quarter.
In the end, 2013 saw 7 new patent case filings, 3 new trademark case filings, and 3 new copyright case filings. This matches the 2011 total of 13 new filings, and just barely exceeds the 2012 total of 12 new case filings.
Let’s hope for more intellectual property case filings in 2014. Then there will be more cases to highlight here!
These numbers only include cases that have been designated in the court's database as a patent, trademark or copyright case. There are other cases pending where the complaint may include trademark or other intellectual property claims, or where intellectual property counterclaims may have been asserted. But unless the case is designated as such in the court's database, we are not counting it here.
Related Posts:6 New IP Cases Filed in RI in June2013
Thursday, January 2, 2014
This recent decision highlights the importance of spending some time thinking about whether a mark used in connection with software is being used on a product (software), is being used for “software as a service,” or is merely incidental to the underlying service.
In NetJets, the federal district court cancelled an incontestable, 18 year old registration for INTELLIJET for “computer software for managing aircraft leasing and sales” as void ab initio and as abandoned, even though:
· NetJets had used the mark as the name of its internal software since 1995;
· NetJets had spent over $20 million to upgrade its software;
· NetJets launched a “portal” in 2013 where clients could log in and see the INTELLIJET name displayed on the screen, but the mark was not displayed to non-customers who access the NetJets website;
· NetJets included discussion of the IntelliJet’s software functionality in newsletters to owners and in literature provided to passengers on its planes;
· NetJets brochures have mentioned the IntelliJets software;
· Several magazine articles about NetJets have mentioned the IntelliJets software;
· NetJets demonstrates the software for customers and potential customers.
The court determined that NetJets did not have enforceable rights in the INTELLIJET mark because it did not use the mark in commerce as the term “use in commerce” is defined in the federal Lanham Act. Section 45 of the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, defines “use in commerce,” in relevant part:
The term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this Act, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce – (1) on goods when – (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto; or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale; and (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce ...
Key factors in the court’s determination that the use of the INTELLIJET mark on NetJets’ software was not a “use in commerce” were:
· NetJets is not in the business of selling software;
· The IntelliJet software is simply the conduit through which NetJets provides a high level of service to its customers;
· NetJets does not promote the software as a separate product, but only as part and parcel of the services NetJets provides;
· NetJets does not sell the IntelliJet software separately from the services that NetJets provides.
As a result, the court concluded that NetJets’ use of the INTELLIJET mark is not a “use in commerce” on the software, and cancelled the registration.
As a result of the NetJets decision, and similar decisions in other courts, a trademark owner that uses software in its business should take care in determining whether to file a trademark application at all to cover the software, and what goods or services are covered in any trademark application that is filed. To be safe, especially in close situations, the trademark owner may want to consider filing separate applications to register the mark for the software and for the underlying services. This strategy would still provide for registration and protection of the mark for the services in the event that the registration of the mark for software is challenged or cancelled.