LeBron James files trademark request for "Taco Tuesday"

[Bayside]

Pretty sure this thread goes beyond 21 pages hahaha. The things I get from this thread is how varied opinions are from state to state and various demographics. When posters don't show locations and teams it makes it harder to read. Pretty sure opinions here vary or not if your diet consists of those delicious California tacos. Or Cleveland fast food tacos with cheeze wiz. If you have a you-tube channel and suddenly you get a bite of those tacos in all their gloriousnous, you too would be screaming for taco tuesday.... You would want to trade mark it too. Eureka , I found it! Taco Tuesday..

#savetacotuesday
Sign the petition
#gethimoutofcali

lol

[michaelm]

I know, I was specifically addressing the reasons provided by the examiner and why he/she is incorrect. By the way, this is an Office Action. Most applications get an Office Action in response. This is not unusual or the end of the story.

Sure, the trademark office being comprised of human beings may be wrong, but they are fairly likely to be somewhat familiar with trademark law, unfamiliarity with which seems to be be your criticism of the poster you chided and the criticism on this thread of those who ran the same line of argument the trademark office themselves have now propounded.

I think he was attempting to trademark employment of the term in close to the social context in which it has existed. If he wants to manufacture a Taco Tuesday smart phone I have no objection. If this now means he can use the term unmolested good luck to him, but I imagine he could have trademarked “LeBron’s Taco Tuesday podcast” without much difficulty.

You're seriously underestimating the number of marks that are registered after receiving an initial OA like LeBron received.

Not my point, he obviously might have good enough lawyers and be prepared to push it sufficiently far to get a trademark, particularly against a government agency with limited financial resources which would not be prepared to die in a ditch over a fairly trivial matter.

My point was that an initial ruling from the actual trademark office pretty much follows the line of argument of most on this thread who think that him applying for the trademark is ridiculous, so it is hard for me to see how that line of argument can be called ignorant or stupid.

Imo (only) Bayside’s recent post says it all as to why people are objecting, the implication of all this is that LeBron discovering something means he thinks he owns it/can own it, no matter the countless millions who might have discovered the particular phenomenon before him. I personally consider him a fairly solid citizen off court and less self absorbed than the average billionaire, but this does not preclude significant self absorption all the same.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

LeBron now 3-7.

I was gonna say if he treats his lawsuits like nba championships he goes into them expecting to take an L...

[Effigy]

Pretty sure this thread goes beyond 20.

Lol. What a Reach to say that on page 19. Really going out on a limb there.

[Bayside]

Pretty sure this thread goes beyond 20.

Lol. What a Reach to say that on page 19. Really going out on a limb there.

Your right. Going back to edit to 21 pages. Still shocks me.

[michaelm]

I am currently standing in front of a (closed) UGG shop in downtown Chicago. As an Australian owning that as a brand is preposterous.

[BullyKing]

Sure, the trademark office being comprised of human beings may be wrong, but they are fairly likely to be somewhat familiar with trademark law, unfamiliarity with which seems to be be your criticism of the poster you chided and the criticism on this thread of those who ran the same line of argument the trademark office themselves have now propounded.

I think he was attempting to trademark employment of the term in close to the social context in which it has existed. If he wants to manufacture a Taco Tuesday smart phone I have no objection. If this now means he can use the term unmolested good luck to him, but I imagine he could have trademarked “LeBron’s Taco Tuesday podcast” without much difficulty.

You're seriously underestimating the number of marks that are registered after receiving an initial OA like LeBron received.

Not my point, he obviously might have good enough lawyers and be prepared to push it sufficiently far to get a trademark, particularly against a government agency with limited financial resources which would not be prepared to die in a ditch over a fairly trivial matter.

My point was that an initial ruling from the actual trademark office pretty much follows the line of argument of most on this thread who think that him applying for the trademark is ridiculous, so it is hard for me to see how that line of argument can be called ignorant or stupid.

Answer this question: what connection does the phrase taco tuesday have to marketing services?

[michaelm]

You're seriously underestimating the number of marks that are registered after receiving an initial OA like LeBron received.

Not my point, he obviously might have good enough lawyers and be prepared to push it sufficiently far to get a trademark, particularly against a government agency with limited financial resources which would not be prepared to die in a ditch over a fairly trivial matter.

My point was that an initial ruling from the actual trademark office pretty much follows the line of argument of most on this thread who think that him applying for the trademark is ridiculous, so it is hard for me to see how that line of argument can be called ignorant or stupid.

Answer this question: what connection does the phrase taco tuesday have to marketing services?

The whole vibe of shooting the breeze over basketball, other sports or anything else over tacos on a Tuesday or any other day. As I have said, if he tried to trademark “LeBron’s Taco Tuesday podcast” I doubt he would face difficulties or objections.

Apple computers, smartphones or whatever clearly didn’t have much to do with the concept of the apple (Mr Jobs/his successors are attempting to capitalise the word as I post on my iPhone) as a fruit, not that I necessarily agree with Apple being trademarked by Steve Jobs or even the Beatles, although any creativity involved with applying the name Apple to something disparate from the fruit fairly clearly resides with the Beatles ahead of Steve Jobs, as I believe the courts/ the legal process you revere ruled.

[StatLine]

It’s like he forgot the world doesn’t revolve around him.

[BullyKing]

Not my point, he obviously might have good enough lawyers and be prepared to push it sufficiently far to get a trademark, particularly against a government agency with limited financial resources which would not be prepared to die in a ditch over a fairly trivial matter.

My point was that an initial ruling from the actual trademark office pretty much follows the line of argument of most on this thread who think that him applying for the trademark is ridiculous, so it is hard for me to see how that line of argument can be called ignorant or stupid.

Answer this question: what connection does the phrase taco tuesday have to marketing services?

The whole vibe of shooting the breeze over basketball, other sports or anything else over tacos on a Tuesday or any other day.

I'm sorry but that's not remotely what the law is.

[michaelm]

Answer this question: what connection does the phrase taco tuesday have to marketing services?

The whole vibe of shooting the breeze over basketball, other sports or anything else over tacos on a Tuesday or any other day.

I'm sorry but that's not remotely what the law is.

We have 2 separate discussions here. Whether he can trademark it and whether he should be able to. I have conceded he may be able to trademark it, just like some American company has trademarked Ugg boots and prevented Australian companies who have called their sheepskin boots by that name for decades from doing so internationally, but it is imo and that of others ridiculous both that LeBron may be able to trademark Taco Tuesday in this context and that he is trying to do so. The trademark office with perhaps some familiarity with trademark law has initially regarded the matter similarly which would suggest to me anyway that those who object are not completely stupid. If LeBron eventually succeeds by a fine point of the law and having the money to pursue it he will have succeeded by a fine point of the law and having the money to pursue it.

[BullyKing]

The whole vibe of shooting the breeze over basketball, other sports or anything else over tacos on a Tuesday or any other day.

I'm sorry but that's not remotely what the law is.

We have 2 separate discussions here. Whether he can trademark it and whether he should be able to. I have conceded he may be able to trademark it, just like some American company has trademarked Ugg boots and prevented Australian companies who have called their sheepskin boots by that name for decades from doing so internationally, but it is imo and that of others ridiculous both that LeBron may be able to trademark Taco Tuesday in this context and that he is trying to do so. The trademark office with perhaps some familiarity with trademark law has initially regarded the matter similarly which would suggest to me anyway that those who object are not completely stupid. If LeBron eventually succeeds by a fine point of the law and having the money to pursue it he will have succeeded by a fine point of the law and having the money to pursue it.

That's a helpful clarification as you're right, we were looking at it from different perspectives. And I'm not saying anyone who disagrees is stupid as I certainly understand why people, especially believe those who think a trademark prevents anyone from the using the phrase for anything, think the way they do. I'm just saying that as a legal matter, the examiner is wrong - btw, they're not stupid either. There is a great range of quality among them and they are all also entirely overwhelmed with work.

The Ugg situation you reference is something that will become less and less common as time goes on. Trademarks are national for the most part (some exceptions in the EU and South America where countries have tied their offices together) so someone using Ugg for boots in Australia does not have any rights in the United States. With the internet and global commerce (i.e., those Australian companies would now-a-days also sell in the US because its so easy), it won't be nearly as big of an issue going forward.

[michaelm]

I'm sorry but that's not remotely what the law is.

We have 2 separate discussions here. Whether he can trademark it and whether he should be able to. I have conceded he may be able to trademark it, just like some American company has trademarked Ugg boots and prevented Australian companies who have called their sheepskin boots by that name for decades from doing so internationally, but it is imo and that of others ridiculous both that LeBron may be able to trademark Taco Tuesday in this context and that he is trying to do so. The trademark office with perhaps some familiarity with trademark law has initially regarded the matter similarly which would suggest to me anyway that those who object are not completely stupid. If LeBron eventually succeeds by a fine point of the law and having the money to pursue it he will have succeeded by a fine point of the law and having the money to pursue it.

That's a helpful clarification as you're right, we were looking at it from different perspectives. And I'm not saying anyone who disagrees is stupid as I certainly understand why people, especially believe those who think a trademark prevents anyone from the using the phrase for anything, think the way they do. I'm just saying that as a legal matter, the examiner is wrong - btw, they're not stupid either. There is a great range of quality among them and they are all also entirely overwhelmed with work.

The Ugg situation you reference is something that will become less and less common as time goes on. Trademarks are national for the most part (some exceptions in the EU and South America where countries have tied their offices together) so someone using Ugg for boots in Australia does not have any rights in the United States. With the internet and global commerce (i.e., those Australian companies would now-a-days also sell in the US because its so easy), it won't be nearly as big of an issue going forward.

As I understand it they bought one Australian company which manufactured what is regarded as a generic product in Australia then trademarked the name internationally, something which was neither their invention nor something they had really purchased from an Australian viewpoint, so while no doubt legal and good/sharp business practice not looked on particularly kindly here.

As you say, probably less likely in future with pervasive on line selling etc.