Trademarks

Trademarks and service marks are vital symbols of the goodwill of a particular business. They are all around us, but are subject to abuse, confusion and dilution. To remain strong, they must be aggressively enforced. The Trademark attorneys at Polsinelli Shughart PC are skilled at preserving, protecting and enforcing our clients’ brand identity and goodwill.

A trademark is anything that provides a connection between your products and services and your company. This could be a word, a phrase, a logo, a design, a sound or a color that is identifiable with you or your business and distinguishes your business from others. As defined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: “A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.” Once you have selected, designed or adopted the most suitable trademark or service mark, it must be properly filed, prosecuted and processed.

Our trademarks lawyers have researched, prepared and successfully filed thousands of trademark and service mark applications for a broad range of clients, including national manufacturing and service entities, insurance companies, health care providers, Internet publishers, economic development agencies and other business interests. In addition, our trademarks practice is international in scope. We handle the registration of marks in countries around the world. We maintain relationships with a variety of local law firms and practitioners to enhance our international trademark knowledge and to serve our clients with their entire international needs. Finally, we provide legal representation in adversary proceedings, either at the Trademark Office, in the courts or through negotiated settlements and concurrent use arrangements.

Our trademarks practice consists of four categories and are detailed below:

  • Protection - In combination with the evaluation and clearance of trademarks, and the registration of trademarks with the USPTO, we work with clients to establish branding and policing programs, as well as usage guidelines, and provide guidance on infringement issues – both on a proactive and defensive basis. We take a proactive, business-focused approach when dealing with and protecting a client’s intangible assets, in combination with trademark filings, trade dress or domain names. When necessary, we also protect our clients' valuable trademarks, trade dress or Internet domain names in court, before the USPTO or in foreign jurisdictions. We are accustomed to sending or responding to, as the case may be, cease and desist letters and the conduct of negotiations with third parties on issues of infringement or other violations. We have also initiated or defended a wide range of administrative and court proceedings to protect our clients' trademarks and trade dress in combination with our intellectual property litigation practice group.
  • Counseling - Our trademark filing and maintenance service includes clearance and registration of trademarks and service marks before the USPTO and state and foreign trademark offices. We can protect names, logos, designs, phrases and other devices developed by our clients, and provide legal guidance on the protection of goods, services and Internet issues. We provide preliminary and full clearance searches, provide opinion letters on trademark availability and infringement, and provide guidance on trademark usage and monitoring. In addition, through counseling clients in the acquisition, transfer and licensing of strategic marks, we help our clients build and manage trademark portfolios that create ongoing value for their businesses. At each stage of the process, we do our best to counsel clients against the adoption of trademarks that cannot be protected or that involve an undue risk of litigation or potential infringement claims.
  • Prosecution/Defense - Our trademarks practice prepares and files a wide variety of trademark and service mark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and supervises the registration of trademarks on a worldwide basis. We maintain a computerized docket of trademark filings and registrations and regularly provide status reports on trademark portfolios. These updates enable our clients to be well informed about the status of their portfolio and to remain abreast of deadlines for the prosecution and maintenance of their marks. We also handle the opposition and cancellation of third-party trademark applications and registrations before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, we have also defended clients against claims that their trademarks or trade names may be confusingly similar to third-party trademarks or trademark registrations.
  • Transactions - In addition to the creation and maintenance of trademarks, our group also routinely provides advice and guidance on franchise or licensing opportunities, as well as with respect to the evaluation of trademark and intellectual property portfolios involved in a merger/acquisition, asset sale or joint venture transaction. Our group has interfaced with our corporate practice to handle the specialized issues with evaluating, acquiring or transferring an intellectual property portfolio, or the securitization of the portfolio as part of a loan transaction. Our transactional attorneys also negotiate and finalize a broad range of contracts and agreements for our clients, including those in established areas such as merchandising, product placement, non-compete clauses, distribution, and manufacturing rights, as well as newer fields such as Internet distribution and marketing. We also regularly review clients’ advertising and promotional materials to be certain that claims are supported by the necessary level of substantiation.

Our trademarks attorneys know how important protecting the creations of individuals and companies are to the lifeblood of innovation and the ability to reap its rewards. We are just as comfortable managing large international trademark portfolios for some of the world’s best-known corporations as we are helping to develop unique and protectable trademarks for smaller and start-up companies. That’s why we have experience in a wide range of resources and services to protect intellectual property of all kinds:

  • Trademark searches, applications, prosecution and enforcement
  • Trade dress
  • Trade secrets
  • Unfair competition
  • Licensing and merchandising
  • Electronic commerce, e-business and Internet law
  • Rights of publicity and celebrity
  • Trademark and copyright litigation

Those steps are only the beginning. Polsinelli Shughart attorneys are skilled at prosecuting and defending oppositions, cancellations, infringement claims and controversies involving trademarks and service marks and the closely linked intellectual property areas of trade dress, business identity and Internet domain names. As an aside, our trademarks practice maintains over 2,500 active federal and state trademark registrations and applications on behalf of our clients.

Notable Experience

  • Title Boxing LLC v. Empower Training Systems, Inc. Mark: TITLEFIGHT FITNESS #77/472,829 Opposition Serial No. 77/472,829
  • Naismith International Basketball Foundation and Ian Naismith v. Atlanta Tip Off Club, Inc. Mark: NAISMITH AWARDS #76/258,183 / Reg. No. 2,609,419 Cancellation Serial No. 92047966
  • Noble Communications Company v. AFC Network Private Limited Mark: AFC ASIAN FOOD CHANNEL #77/151,617 Opposition Serial No. 91190024 (representing plaintiff)
  • Human Factors International, Inc. v. The Human Factor, Inc. Mark: THE HUMAN FACTOR Opposition Serial No. 91188943 (representing plaintiff)
  • Whiskey Creek Franchise Systems, L.L.C. v. Hammerhead Entertainment, LLC Mark: WR WHISKY RIVER Opposition Serial No. 91190039 (representing plaintiff)
  • Team Athletic Goods, Inc. v. Mike McClintock Mark: BATTLEGEAR Opposition Serial No. 77342367 (represented plaintiff). Successfully obtained abandonment of defendant’s mark
  • Guthy-Renker, LLC v. Alva International L.L.C. Mark: PROSACEA Opposition Serial No. 91188773 (represented defendant). Successfully defended against opposition; defendant’s mark registered Schroeder & Tremayne Inc. v. Paunui Holdings Pty. Ltd. Mark: BOTANIQ Opposition Serial No. 77094145 (represented plaintiff). Successfully obtained transfer and express abandonment of defendant’s mark

    Trademark Cases
  • American Racing Equipment v. Estate of Greg Weld, et al. From 2007, representing specialty racing wheel manufacturer in trademark infringement litigation brought by competitor. The case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
  • Builders Mutual Insurance Company v. Builders’ Mutual Casualty Company. From 2008, representing defendant insurance company in a trademark infringement litigation, including a motion for preliminary injunction, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and related trademark cancellation proceedings in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The matter recently settled on favorable terms.
  • Earth City Technologies, Inc. v. San Diego Swiss Machining, Inc. From 2001 to 2003, involved in the representation of San Diego Swiss Machining, Inc., a manufacturer of ultrasonic dental equipment. The case involved allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement, trademark infringement, improper inventorship, inequitable conduct and invalidity. Following a Markman hearing and cross-motions for summary judgment, the case settled.
  • Extell Diamond Tower v. Forty-Seventh Fifth Company. From 2007, representing a major real estate management company in a trademark opposition and cancellation proceeding in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
  • FURminator v. Ontel Prods. Corp., et al. From 2006-2007, represented pet grooming tool manufacturer Munchkin, Incorporated, in patent and trademark infringement litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. We successfully defended against a motion for preliminary injunction. The decision is published as, FURminator, Inc. v. Ontel Prods. Corp., 429 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (E.D. Mo. 2006), and was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Following remand, the case was favorably resolved.
  • Great Neck v. New Buffalo; etc. From 2005, representing a tool manufacturer in several matters involving claims of utility and design patents and trade dress infringement, all filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
  • Insure America (Cayman) Limited v. Insureamerica, L.L.C. From 2008, represented plaintiff in trademark infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The firm obtained a consent judgment in our client’s favor.
  • Intel Corporation v. Intell Management and Investment Company. From 2003-2005, represented defendant in trademark infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The matter settled on a confidential basis after mediation.
  • Kiddopotomus v. Holmes. From 2004-2005, represented Kiddopotomus, a juvenile products manufacturer, in inter partes trademark cancellation proceeding in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We obtained summary judgment in favor of Kiddopotomus.
  • Kinergy v. Didion Manufacturing. From 2001-2004, represented industrial manufacturing company, Didion Manufacturing, as defendant in trade secrets action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. After Didion obtained summary judgment on almost every aspect of the case, the matter settled.
  • Laser Vision Centers v. Laser Vision Institute. From 2000 to 2002, represented the Laser Vision Institute, a provider of laser vision corrective eye surgery, in a trademark matter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The case settled following cross-motions for summary judgment on the infringement issue and a motion for summary judgment of invalidity.
  • Renaissance Imports v. Post Performance. From 2003-2004, represented a shoe distributor with respect to claims of trade dress infringement. The matter settled after the firm was successful in removing the matter to Federal Court.
  • SourceOne Global Partners v. KGK Synergize, Inc. From 2008, representing nutritional supplement company, SourceOne Global Partners, in declaratory judgment action involving allegations of patent and trademark infringement. The case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
  • St. James Winery v. Illinois Cellars. From 2004-2005, represented the largest winery in Missouri against a competitor who violated the client’s trade and service marks. The matter settled.
  • Superior Products Int’l II, Inc. v. Global Environmental Microbial Solutions, Inc. From 2008, represented Global Environmental Microbial Solutions in trademark infringement suit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The case settled on a favorable basis.
  • Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. Dave Grossman Creations, Inc., et al. From 2008, representing various defendants in a trademark and copyright infringement suit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
  • Woodard v. Harrison & Weather Commodities Solutions. From 2008, representing defendants in a litigation over rights to an insurance rating system. The matter remains pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Newsletters & E-Alerts

June 28, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bilski v. Kappos and eliminated some of the uncertainty that had been caused by the Federal Circuit's bright-line machine-or-transformation test for patentable subject matter of method patents.  As a result, there will be continuing patent protection for computer software, computer-based business methods and medical diagnostics.