Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Screen shot from Samsung’s new commercial. It’s worth watching.

You can’t call it the Super Bowl.

Or that’s what the NFL would have you believe.

Really, that’s a joke. The game’s called the Super Bowl, and if you want to refer to the Super Bowl, you don’t have to call it the “Big Game.” Using a trademark owner’s trademark to refer to the owner’s branded good is perfectly fair use. Not that I expect the NFL to agree with me.

This video — a new Samsung commercial — makes great fun of the NFL’s over-reaching control of its trademark. It’s really worth a look.

Check it out now, before its screens during the Big Game.

Coupla quotes yesterday about who owns the Sonics’ trademarks

The Sonics haven’t returned quite yet.

And neither have their trademarks.

When owner Clay Bennett moved our beloved team to Oklahoma City, he took the basket of SEATTLE SUPERSONICS trademarks with him. In an agreement that settled the City of Seattle’s lawsuit intended to prevent the move, Mr. Bennett’s Professional Basketball Club, LLC, promised to return the marks to Seattle if a new owner brought an NBA-authorized team here that played in a renovated Key Arena. (Post discussing the agreement here.) Once those conditions are met, all the new owner has to do is request a transfer.

Things are looking good, but those things haven’t happened yet. That means fans who buy Sonics gear in the the euphoria of getting our team back presumably — and unwittingly — will profit the guy who caused our heartache. D’oh!

KING-5 TV interviewed me yesterday in a story about this odd twist.

My advice? Not that you asked, but wait to buy your Sonics gear until the purchase is complete and Oklahoma City transfers the trademarks back to the city where they belong.

The Cup, from www.CascadiaCup.com

This is awesome.

Pacific Northwest soccer fans have been up in arms about Major League Soccer’s recent application to register CASCADIA CUP as a trademark with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office — Canada’s counterpart of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The Cascadia Cup is awarded to the fans of the team with the most points in a season between the Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, and Vancouver Whitecaps — by the fans of those teams. It’s been around since 2004.

So why did the league lay claim to the brand in December when it applied to register the mark in Canada? It’s not theirs to register.

True, the league could be trying to make sure a rogue didn’t claim it, but from the looks of it, the league’s the rogue. As in the States, the first to use a mark in Canada generally has superior rights. Since it’s a trophy by fans, for fans, it’s unclear what business the league has to protect it.

What’s cool is the fans have filed their own application to register the mark in the States. Just last week, the “Cascadia Cup Council,” an Oregon corporation, filed for CASCADIA CUP in Class 41 for “Entertainment services, namely, a contest designed to reward and honor professional soccer teams.” The Council claims a first use date in 2004 — the first year the cup was awarded.

From the Council’s press release:

“The supporters groups in Seattle, Portland and Vancouver jointly oppose Major League Soccer’s claim of ownership of the Cascadia Cup trademark. The three supporters groups have jointly used the Cascadia Cup mark for many years and have been the rightful owners of the mark. In response to recent statements and actions by MLS, the supporters groups recently formed a new entity, the Cascadia Cup Council, which acquired the supporters’ groups trademark rights in the Cascadia Cup mark. The Cascadia Cup Council will ensure that the mark remains in the hands of the very supporters who created it.”

It looks like the Council intends to oppose the league’s application in Canada as well.

Like I said, this is awesome. All I can say is, “Go Sounders!”

HT: Rachel Buker of the China Law Blog.

A friendly reminder: Champagne can only come Champagne, France.

Happy New Year!

Just in time for the big event, the Comite Champagne trade association launched a new round of advertising intended to remind Americans that Champagne only comes from the Champagne region of France.

The text says: “Maine lobster from Kansas? Of course not. Champagne only comes from Champagne, France. Just like Napa Valley wines come from Napa Valley, Maine lobster comes from Maine and Champagne can only come from Champagne, France. Find out more at www.champagne.us.”

I have no beef with this message, even though the folks behind the Champagne region have monkeyed with the borders of the region, calling into question (at least in my mind) what the difference really is between Champagne grapes and those grown a stone’s throw outside the region. But clearly, growers within the region have a right to tell consumers that sparkling wine made from grapes grown in the States can’t be Champagne.

NPR had a longish story yesterday about this issue as well, which highlighted what some might say is a confusing practice — wineries stating “methode champenoise,” or “champagne method” on their labels of non-Champagne wines, ostensibly to indicate the use of a traditional means of winemaking. Champagne wineries, of course, cry foul.

But what I’m wondering is what geographic indication trademarks signal to consumers that a good comes from Seattle? I must admit that none immediately come to mind.