Entries from May 1, 2008 - May 31, 2008
Starbucks May Oppose Seattle's Rat City Rollergirls Trademark Application
Confusingly similar? Likely to cause dilution?
Sorry for the delay, but this hit the media while I was at INTA…. Starbucks Corp. has been granted an extension of time to oppose the Rat City Rollergirls, LLC’s application to register its design mark used in connection with “Coordination of recreational sporting opportunities for individuals who wish to participate in team league sports; Promoting sports competitions and/or events of others.”
The Rat City Rollergirls are Seattle’s roller derby league.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes a Starbucks spokesperson as saying: “We haven’t opposed it — we have asked for more time to look at it.” She added: “There’s a lot of room for us to work together to find a mutually beneficial conclusion here.”
The paper also quotes Rat City’s lawyer as saying: “The Starbucks lawyer said that the girls on the roller derby team look scary, and she didn’t think, in her own personal opinion, (that) Starbucks would want to associate themselves with the scary characters of Rat City Rollergirls.”
Starbucks now has until July 16 to oppose the application.





INTA Recap: Our Own United Nations
Meet the Bloggers IV: Trademark law bloggers of the world unite!
It’s hard to recap a four-day conference involving thousands of trademark lawyers from around the world. Despite my nagging jet lag, I’m still energized. For me, this year’s INTA transcended the usual meeting and greeting. Maybe it’s because I’ve gone to a few of these now and the folks I met for the first time three years ago in San Diego are now becoming good friends. But I started thinking that INTA’s annual meeting could be something of an agent of peace. Take the Meet the Bloggers event (photo above), for example. That night, I met folks kind of like me from England, Italy, Spain, South Africa, the United States, and many points in between. Our own United Nations. The night ended, quite late, over burgers and beer with old and new friends from the States, Holland, and Australia. I thought: this is what it’s all about. Sure, INTA is about making business contacts. But the best business contacts are friends. I’m already looking forward to seeing my friends again next year, when INTA comes to Seattle. Here’s to a peaceful year between now and then.
Photo credit: Tribbey Thornton. Thanks again to this year’s host Jeremy Phillips (pictured in front).
INTA Update Coming...
DUNKIN’ DONUTS, POTSDAMER PLATZ, BERLIN - As expected, I’ve spent much quality time with my fellow trademark lawyers at the 130th annual International Trademark Association’s annual meeting here in Berlin. Consequently, I haven’t had much time to post. That will change once I return home. I’ve got an INTA recap and some photos from the “Meet the Bloggers IV” gathering I’m looking forward to posting — by the end of the Memorial Day weekend at the latest. Until then, thanks for your patience. For those who came to INTA, safe travels home!
See you at INTA!
Slight blogging slowdown ahead as I travel to Berlin to join thousands of other trademark lawyers from around the world at the 130th annual meeting of the International Trademark Association. What a conference! Please say hello if you see me there.
I will definitely be at the “Meet the Bloggers IV” gathering discussed here. All trademark law bloggers, readers, and friends are welcome. If you want to meet up some other time, you also can reach me on my BlackBerry via the STL “Email me” link at right (or at matkins at grahamdunn.com). I hope to see you there!




Adidas v. Payless Jury Instructions
By popular demand, here are the jury instructions in the Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. case. All 60 pages of them. The ten pages of instruction on dilution start on page 38.
Besides a reader’s request for the instructions on dilution, everyone is commended to check out the entire instructions. This case was the full meal deal — it had instructions on trademarks, trade dress, trademark infringement, likelihood of confusion, unfair and deceptive practices, dilution, and damages. This is good stuff.
The case cite is Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., No. 01-1655 (King, J.).



