RealGM

He should file a trademark request for other phrases as well:
"Coach Killer"
"Super Teams"
"ISO Ball"
"Stat Padder"
"Under Achiever"

lakerz12 wrote:

INKtastic wrote:I own a t-shirt company, this nonsense has to stop. You aren't supposed to be able to trademark things people already use, but sometimes the USPTO has an idiot reviewing them who lets them through. The other day a trademark for "dogs" on apparel was approved, so now all apparel that has the word dogs in it, or in the title, or in the description, can get flagged as trademark violations on all of the marketplaces we sell on, even though we, along with everyone else, has plenty of prior art. This kind of nonsense is really the biggest headache in running our business.

You can if you're using it in a totally different category (e.g. clothing vs. oil/gas) and it meets the other qualifications.

However if you mean you aren't supposed to be able to Trademark "Generic terms, phrases, or the like", agreed.

And "Taco Tuesday" and "Dogs" should probably qualify as "generic".

The USPTO does let through Trademarks and Patents that aren't really valid. However, it is still up to those owners to defend the Trademark or Patent.

The owner of the "dogs" trademark would almost assuredly not be able to successfully defend their Trademark. I agree with you it is lame that is even granted or given any sort of credence.

The dogs trademark is for apparel, and the problem is that until someone challenges the dogs trademark and wins, they owner can get Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, etc, etc, to pull any t-shrits with the word "dogs" on them. Not only that, some of these will ban sellers over issues like this. We had a company copy one of our designs that was a minor seller, trademark their copy, file a trademark complaint against us - It eventually caused us to lose a massive amount of sales on Amazon from a suspension of our seller privileges that happened after they retracted their complaint because Amazon made a mistake processing the retraction. We have over 100,000 designs, we can't possibly check every single trademark filing for frivolous stuff like this and compare them to every one of our designs.

Oh, and Ohio State has filed for a trademark on the word "THE" for apparel.

TheNG wrote:He should file a trademark request for other phrases as well:
"Coach Killer"
"Super Teams"
"ISO Ball"
"Stat Padder"
"Under Achiever"

"LeRunnerup"

Sent from my Pixel 3 using RealGM mobile app

BillTheGOAT wrote:I hope he dies buried in money. Greedy bastard.

Pat Riley owns three peat.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

TheNG wrote:He should file a trademark request for other phrases as well:
"Coach Killer"
"Super Teams"
"ISO Ball"
"Stat Padder"
"Under Achiever"

I agree with the 1st two

Good for him. LeBron is constantly growing to be greater in every way possible. Can’t hate on a man continuously trying to be better than yesterday. He’s not breaking any rules. It’s admirable. And he gives back a ton so it’s extra great to see him grow.

If you hate on this, you need to look in the mirror and take some responsibility for your life. Your life is exactly what you make it. Hating on others trying to be better is bringing you down. Good day.

INKtastic wrote:

lakerz12 wrote:

INKtastic wrote:I own a t-shirt company, this nonsense has to stop. You aren't supposed to be able to trademark things people already use, but sometimes the USPTO has an idiot reviewing them who lets them through. The other day a trademark for "dogs" on apparel was approved, so now all apparel that has the word dogs in it, or in the title, or in the description, can get flagged as trademark violations on all of the marketplaces we sell on, even though we, along with everyone else, has plenty of prior art. This kind of nonsense is really the biggest headache in running our business.

You can if you're using it in a totally different category (e.g. clothing vs. oil/gas) and it meets the other qualifications.

However if you mean you aren't supposed to be able to Trademark "Generic terms, phrases, or the like", agreed.

And "Taco Tuesday" and "Dogs" should probably qualify as "generic".

The USPTO does let through Trademarks and Patents that aren't really valid. However, it is still up to those owners to defend the Trademark or Patent.

The owner of the "dogs" trademark would almost assuredly not be able to successfully defend their Trademark. I agree with you it is lame that is even granted or given any sort of credence.

The dogs trademark is for apparel, and hte problem is that until someone challenges the dogs trademark and wins, they owner can get Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, etc, etc, to pull any t-shrits with the word "dogs" on them. Not only that, some of these will ban sellers over issues like this. We had a company copy one of our designs that was a minor seller, trademark their copy, file a trademark complaint against us - It eventually caused us to lose a massive amount of sales on Amazon from a suspension of our seller privileges that happened after they retracted their complaint because Amazon made a mistake processing the retraction. We have over 100,000 designs, we can't possibly check every single trademark filing for frivolous stuff like this and compare them to every one of our designs.

It surprises me that Amazon, Walmart, etc. would immediately comply with the trademark owner. I can see them taking a hard stance against the use of celebrities in images, etc. because that's easy to identify. But to take a stance on who owns the right to use certain words, they are essentially acting as the court.

Because as you know using the Word or phrase first in commerce typically grants you "common law" trademark rights in your state. So why is Amazon or whoever really in a position to say that someone's Trademark overrules someone else's common law rights, etc. They really aren't qualified to do that. It's way too complicated.

But yeah, I guess it falls back on the USPTO for granting the Trademark. They really granted them "Dogs" for the t-shirt category?

lakerz12 wrote:

INKtastic wrote:

lakerz12 wrote:
You can if you're using it in a totally different category (e.g. clothing vs. oil/gas) and it meets the other qualifications.

However if you mean you aren't supposed to be able to Trademark "Generic terms, phrases, or the like", agreed.

And "Taco Tuesday" and "Dogs" should probably qualify as "generic".

The USPTO does let through Trademarks and Patents that aren't really valid. However, it is still up to those owners to defend the Trademark or Patent.

The owner of the "dogs" trademark would almost assuredly not be able to successfully defend their Trademark. I agree with you it is lame that is even granted or given any sort of credence.

The dogs trademark is for apparel, and hte problem is that until someone challenges the dogs trademark and wins, they owner can get Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, etc, etc, to pull any t-shrits with the word "dogs" on them. Not only that, some of these will ban sellers over issues like this. We had a company copy one of our designs that was a minor seller, trademark their copy, file a trademark complaint against us - It eventually caused us to lose a massive amount of sales on Amazon from a suspension of our seller privileges that happened after they retracted their complaint because Amazon made a mistake processing the retraction. We have over 100,000 designs, we can't possibly check every single trademark filing for frivolous stuff like this and compare them to every one of our designs.

It surprises me that Amazon, Walmart, etc. would immediately comply with the trademark owner. I can see them taking a hard stance against the use of celebrities in images, etc. because that's easy to identify. But to take a stance on who owns the right to use certain words, they are essentially acting as the court.

Because as you know using the Word or phrase first in commerce typically grants you "common law" trademark rights in your state. So why is Amazon or whoever really in a position to say that someone's Trademark overrules someone else's common law rights, etc. They really aren't qualified to do that. It's way too complicated.

But yeah, I guess it falls back on the USPTO for granting the Trademark. They really granted them "Dogs" for the t-shirt category?

Yep, a generic word mark for apparel, their sample was a black t-shirt with the word "Dogs" printed on it. Many letters of protest were filed with pages and pages of prior art and the USPTO denied them all.

https://trademarks.justia.com/882/99/dogs-88299285.html

And here's the OSU filling for the word "THE" on apparel

https://trademarks.justia.com/885/71/the-88571984.html

INKtastic wrote:

lakerz12 wrote:

INKtastic wrote:
The dogs trademark is for apparel, and hte problem is that until someone challenges the dogs trademark and wins, they owner can get Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, etc, etc, to pull any t-shrits with the word "dogs" on them. Not only that, some of these will ban sellers over issues like this. We had a company copy one of our designs that was a minor seller, trademark their copy, file a trademark complaint against us - It eventually caused us to lose a massive amount of sales on Amazon from a suspension of our seller privileges that happened after they retracted their complaint because Amazon made a mistake processing the retraction. We have over 100,000 designs, we can't possibly check every single trademark filing for frivolous stuff like this and compare them to every one of our designs.

It surprises me that Amazon, Walmart, etc. would immediately comply with the trademark owner. I can see them taking a hard stance against the use of celebrities in images, etc. because that's easy to identify. But to take a stance on who owns the right to use certain words, they are essentially acting as the court.

Because as you know using the Word or phrase first in commerce typically grants you "common law" trademark rights in your state. So why is Amazon or whoever really in a position to say that someone's Trademark overrules someone else's common law rights, etc. They really aren't qualified to do that. It's way too complicated.

But yeah, I guess it falls back on the USPTO for granting the Trademark. They really granted them "Dogs" for the t-shirt category?

Yep, a generic word mark for apparel, their sample was a black t-shirt with the word "Dogs" printed on it. Many letters of protest were filed with pages and pages of prior art and the USPTO denied them all.

https://trademarks.justia.com/882/99/dogs-88299285.html

Yeah, I don't understand how "Dogs" can be considered "Distinct" considering countless brands and millions of t-shirts are already using the word "dogs".

lakerz12 wrote:

INKtastic wrote:

lakerz12 wrote:
It surprises me that Amazon, Walmart, etc. would immediately comply with the trademark owner. I can see them taking a hard stance against the use of celebrities in images, etc. because that's easy to identify. But to take a stance on who owns the right to use certain words, they are essentially acting as the court.

Because as you know using the Word or phrase first in commerce typically grants you "common law" trademark rights in your state. So why is Amazon or whoever really in a position to say that someone's Trademark overrules someone else's common law rights, etc. They really aren't qualified to do that. It's way too complicated.

But yeah, I guess it falls back on the USPTO for granting the Trademark. They really granted them "Dogs" for the t-shirt category?

Yep, a generic word mark for apparel, their sample was a black t-shirt with the word "Dogs" printed on it. Many letters of protest were filed with pages and pages of prior art and the USPTO denied them all.

https://trademarks.justia.com/882/99/dogs-88299285.html

Yeah, I don't understand how "Dogs" can be considered "Distinct" considering countless brands and millions of t-shirts are already using the word "dogs".

here is a list I made last year of some of the frivolous trademarks the USPTO has approved for apparel - add Dogs to the list.

French Toast
Baseball Mom
Football Mom
Softball Mom
Team Bride
Bride to be
Birthday Girl
This Girl
Big Sister
Big Brother
I’m going to be
Yaya
Beach Babe
Each Other
Uranus
Don’t look at me, that smell is coming from…
I Wear PINK For
I’m kind of a big deal
That’s how I roll
50 and Fabulous
I'm Digging being two
I’m Digging being three
Aged to Perfection
All I Care About Is
40 & Fabulous
Bride’s Squad
Bride’s Maid
Run Now Wine Later
Keep Calm and Work Out

I just saw this on social media. What a greedy arrogant prick he’s turned into. You’ve got be kidding me with this ****. Dude has like a billion dollars and can’t deal w/ people using a phrase that’s been around FOREVER cause he’s got some social media attention for it? Like heaven forbid some corporation or person with a website or show gets a single click or dollar off of something he made famous (for literally zero incremental investment on his part) without him getting his cut.

I remember the phrase Taco Tuesday being used a lot in the original LEGO movie. I wonder if their own any type of rights to it for the entertainment industry or if there was some precedent there. If some little taco chain owns it, I hope they squeeze a couple million out of LeBron - that would be hilarious if it backfired on him.

NBAFan93 wrote:I just saw this on social media. What a greedy arrogant prick he’s turned into. You’ve got be kidding me with this ****. Dude has like a billion dollars and can’t deal w/ people using a phrase that’s been around FOREVER cause he’s got some social media attention for it? Like heaven forbid some corporation or person with a website or show gets a single click or dollar off of something he made famous (for literally zero incremental investment on is part) without him getting his cut.

I remember the phrase Taco Tuesday being used a lot in the original LEGO movie. I wonder if their own any type of rights to it for the entertainment industry or if there was some percedent there. If some little taco chain owns it I hope they squeeze a couple million out of LeBron - that would be hilarious if it backfired on him.

I don't know why this pisses me off either but it just does...

BillTheGOAT wrote:I hope he dies buried in money. Greedy bastard.

Boston sports fan?

Sark wrote:I really like Friday, so I think I'll go trademark "Good Friday".

Someone already successfully registered "good friday" - it was later canceled - some other company had to spend money to get it canceled.

https://trademarks.justia.com/760/05/good-friday-76005857.html

Someone tried to trademark "sunday" for apparel this year.

https://trademarks.justia.com/870/83/sunday-87083455.html

I love falafel and Fridays.

Trademarked.

NBAFan93 wrote:I just saw this on social media. What a greedy arrogant prick he’s turned into. You’ve got be kidding me with this ****. Dude has like a billion dollars and can’t deal w/ people using a phrase that’s been around FOREVER cause he’s got some social media attention for it? Like heaven forbid some corporation or person with a website or show gets a single click or dollar off of something he made famous (for literally zero incremental investment on his part) without him getting his cut.

I remember the phrase Taco Tuesday being used a lot in the original LEGO movie. I wonder if their own any type of rights to it for the entertainment industry or if there was some precedent there. If some little taco chain owns it, I hope they squeeze a couple million out of LeBron - that would be hilarious if it backfired on him.

I can’t imagine how upset you get over things that actually matter.

I dont follow LeBron on any social media, so I have no clue what connection he has to "Taco Tuesday". But honestly this just makes no sense to me. Almost every Mexican restaurant I go to has some kind of "Taco Tuesday" special. So now if one of these little mom and pop Mexican places uses "Taco Tuesday" in their advertisement they can get in troubled and have to pay LeBron James?

Dude if you want to trademark a phrase, be creative and create a new phrase, or at least use your money to pay someone to come up with a catchy catchphrase. This kind of just feels like such a trivial thing for him to do. Its not a big deal at all, more annoying and dumb more than anything else (just like Zion wanting to trademark "Lets Dance" or whatever). This just adds another small thing LeBron has done that just bugs me about him and keeps me from liking the dude. All time great on the court though.

Duke4life831 wrote:I dont follow LeBron on any social media, so I have no clue what connection he has to "Taco Tuesday". But honestly this just makes no sense to me. Almost every Mexican restaurant I go to has some kind of "Taco Tuesday" special. So now if one of these little mom and pop Mexican places uses "Taco Tuesday" in their advertisement they can get in troubled and have to pay LeBron James?

Dude if you want to trademark a phrase, be creative and create a new phrase, or at least use your money to pay someone to come up with a catchy catchphrase. This kind of just feels like such a trivial thing for him to do. Its not a big deal at all, more annoying and dumb more than anything else (just like Zion wanting to trademark "Lets Dance" or whatever). This just adds another small thing LeBron has done that just bugs me about him and keeps me from liking the dude. All time great on the court though.

No, they won't be in trouble. He trademarked it for the following categories:



So, a restaurant using the phrase does not really overlap with what he's trademarked.

And, if he actually tried to sue them he would likely lose. They've been using the phrase in commerce longer than he has and have some rights because of that.

Also, Trademarks are not typically used as an offensive weapon. They are typically a defense against other people using your mark and used for protecting your brand.

His thinking is likely that he wants to use the phrase in conjunction with these online ventures he has planned. So, he may as well have his attorney trademark the phrases. It doesn't mean he will try to sue anyone. It's just that Trademarks are very inexpensive for someone like LeBron, so he may as well have them in case someone else tries to use the same name on the same type of platform.

Lol

Anyone actually know what a trademark is here? No... Shocking.