At Trademarkia, “We want to make applying for a trademark as easy as getting a domain name,” said Raj Abhyanker, one of the founders of the start-up with the goal of becoming the world’s biggest law firm.

Trademarkia has also been featured in the New York Times regarding it's trademark integrated domain search features. 

Technological advancement in the 21st century is truly a marvel of human ingenuity and occurs at such a rapid rate that often times new technologies are outdated before any sort of intellectual property rights can even be granted to their respective owners.  Barring the unfortunate instances when this occurs, protecting these technologies sooner rather than later can be an invaluable step towards their commercial success.  This holds true whether you’re the green CEO of a brand new website, or Neil Young just looking for a way to bring a better musical experience to the masses.  Such is the case that Mr. Young, one of rock and roll’s greatest songwriters and performers, applied for six different trademarks all pertaining to “high resolution audio recordings”; 1080p for MP3’s anyone?

Mr. Young is well known for despising the music industry's lackadaisical attitude towards current audio formats, saying that MP3’s nowadays fail to pick up on a lot of the nuances that were easily detected and reproduced on hard copy formats such as 8-tracks and vinyl discs.  Currently, MP3’s only contain about 5% of the information that is generated in-studio when recording; the other 95% is lost due to poor CD burning techniques and the loss of information when a file is compressed and subsequently decompressed.  It would appear that Neil has a strong desire to rectify this problem, and bring back the “golden age” of recorded audio tracks.

These six trademarks, all filed on June 6, 2011, appear to be hinting towards a possible in-the-near-future release of Mr. Young’s new audio recording/playback format, codenamed “Pono” (though none of the applications reference this name).  Speculation suggests that current technologies, including the advancements in internet speeds, computers with lightning fast processors, and cloud-computing, all indicate that now is the perfect time to release the new audio format reported to bring studio quality sound to downloadable music.  If done right it may even be possible that one would simply need to sign up for an account on some website, download a small browser plug-in, and then stream perfect, studio quality music from cloud-based servers; thus forgoing the need to store large files on your own computer's disk space.

For those of you who don’t follow the great sport of basketball, there is a new powerhouse player taking the game by storm, and his name is Jeremy Lin.  Lin was born in Los Angeles, California and grew up a stone’s throw away from Trademarkia headquarters, in Palo Alto, CA.  After graduating from Harvard University in 2010 he picked up a spot on the Golden State Warriors basketball league before moving on to play for the New York Knicks for the 2011-2012 season.  After not receiving much play in the beginning of the season, he has become the key to some crucial victories by the Knicks, and “entrepreneurs” are catching notice.

To date, there have been eight separate trademarks applications for “linsanity” filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office; none of them older than three weeks since the publication of this article and three of them in the same class, for clothing.  Even more interesting, it would appear that one of these was filed by the newly famed player himself!  It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out, for while Jeremy Lin has applied, his application is not the first to have been submitted and thus will not be the first to be examined by the attorneys at the USPTO.  While one would certainly assume that the Knicks’ number 17 would have more claim to the name than anyone else, this may not actually be true.  

“It’s possible no one can get it, because its likely that some fan or the media actually coined the term.” Says Mitesh Patel, a California licensed trademark attorney, “If that’s the case, [Jeremy Lin] wouldn't be able to trademark the word because, while it refers to him, someone else made it popular.”

Whatever the case may be, it seems that only time will tell whether or not trademarking “linsanity” will pay off. Already, merchandise pertaining to the point guard player is flying off the shelves and fetching some very eye-catching prices, like this Jeremy Lin rookie card for $21,000.  As we all know, a trademark typically takes one year to receive registration, so it looks like any sort of exclusive rights to the name will have to wait until next year's basketball season comes around.  Hopefully Mr. Lin can get a slam dunk with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as easily as he can on the court!

Be aware that private companies not associated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) often use trademark application and registration information from the USPTO’s databases to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  Trademark applicants and registrants continue to submit a significant number of inquiries and complaints to the USPTO about such solicitations, which may include offers: (1) for legal services; (2) for trademark monitoring services; (3) to record trademarks with U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and (4) to “register” trademarks in the company’s own private registry. 

These companies may use names that resemble the USPTO name, including, for example, the terms "United States" or “U.S.”  Increasingly, some of the more unscrupulous companies attempt to make their solicitations mimic the look of official government documents rather than the look of a typical commercial or legal solicitation by emphasizing official government data like the USPTO application serial number, the registration number, the International Class(es), filing dates, and other information that is publicly available from USPTO records.  Many refer to other government agencies and sections of the U.S. Code.  Most require “fees” to be paid.  

Some applicants and registrants have reported paying fees to these private companies, mistakenly thinking that they were paying required fees to the USPTO.  So, be sure to read trademark-related communications carefully before making a decision about whether to respond.  All official correspondence will be from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA, and if by e-mail, specifically from the domain “@uspto.gov.”

If you receive a trademark-related solicitation that you believe is deceptive, you may file an on-line consumer complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), at www.FTC.gov.  Although the FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints, it may institute, as the nation’s consumer protection agency, investigations and prosecutions based on widespread complaints about particular companies or business practices.  If you wish to contact the USPTO regarding such solicitations, please e-mail TMFeedback@uspto.gov.  When notifying us about or forwarding a misleading communication, please also specify whether the recipient thought it was an official USPTO communication and whether fees were mistakenly paid. 

————————————————————————————————–

You may also contact Trademarkia regarding any suspicious mailings or solicitations.Trademarkia hosts a free search engine of the U.S. federal trademark at www.trademarkia.com

In what many professionals in the trademark field consider to have been long overdue, a lawsuit has been filed against USA Trademark Enterprises, Inc. of Sarasota, Florida. USA Trademark Enterprises is one of numerous companies that use publicly available U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) information to solicit individuals and businesses with trademark “publication” offers.

When a trademark application is submitted to the USPTO, the desired trademark and the ownership information of the trademark applicant become publicly accessible information that may be viewed by anyone with access to a computer. USA Trademark Enterprises, among others, see this as an opportunity to solicit the trademark applicant with what may be deemed as useless services in exchange for a fee. Generally, an official looking letter is sent to an applicant offering to “publish” their trademark in one of various trademark databases, most likely owned and published by the sender of the letter. The lawsuit alleges that these letters intend to prey on trademark applicants’ lack of familiarity with the trademark application process, are meant to confuse them into believing that the letter originated from the USPTO, and that payment of the fee is necessary for their trademark be “allowed” or “published for opposition,” which are steps in the trademark application process. The suit alleges that this behavior amounts to fraud and constitutes an unfair business practice and false advertising.

Although the letters state, in small print, that payment of the fee is not mandatory and that the letter is “an offer, not an invoice,” from my experience, this is not enough to avoid confusion. I’ve had to address questions about such letters from dozens of clients. Upon receipt of the letter, they usually call me to ask whether payment of the fee contained in the letter is necessary. In most instances, the conversation begins with their expression of frustration that they have to pay a fee about which they were not informed by me as their attorney. I routinely tell such clients to disregard the letter. This clouds the legitimacy of any trademark related communication.

A convoluted constitutional law discussion may be had on whether such letter senders are acting within their First Amendment rights, but that is not my intention herein. It is uncertain whether such opportunistic companies will ever cease to exist. Therefore, it is important for all trademark applicants, upon the receipt of any letter pertaining to their trademark, to contact their attorney or trademark administrator to find out if the letter was sent from their office, or from the USPTO. No trademark applicant, under any circumstances, should pay any fees contained in such letters without first confirming the source of the letter and whether payment is necessary for their trademark’s registration.

While companies like USA Trademark Enterprises can latch on to the transparent argument that “this is a free country,” and that no laws were broken by their conduct, it is similarly true that a “free country” allows these companies to be sued if someone feels damaged or wronged by their conduct. Since a great number of trademark applicants are confused by these letters, one can say this lawsuit is overdue.

Benjamin Ashurov is a trademark attorney with the law firm of Raj Abhyanker P.C, the top trademark filing firm in the U.S. His aim is to bring exposure to trademark bullying and to help victims who feel helpless in the face of bullying attempts.