Trademark Law

Another example of what happens when you don?t consult a trademark attorney

By Ryan Gile

• KING OF POP
• NEVERLAND
• BILLIE JEAN
• MOONWALK
• THE JACKSON THREE

Each of the applications, filed in July, recite 13 different classes of goods ? each of which consists of a laundry list of goods in that class. And who is listed as the trademark applicant for each of these application? Of course, it?s California residents Pamela Kidd and Paige Linn.

Who?

That?s right ? it looks like another case of someone thinking that they can get rich through a trademark registration on a particular word that they know full well is associated by the public with a different source. And in all five applications (in addition to a 2(d) likelihood of confusion rejection in some cases and some provisional rejections), the PTO has rejected (yes ? these applications were examined in a record time of about a month after filing) all of the applications under Section 2(a) on the basis of a false association with ? guess who?:

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with Michael Jackson?s estate. Although Michael Jackson?s estate does not appear to be connected with the goods and/or services provided by applicant under the applied-for mark, Michael Jackson was so famous that consumers would presume a connection.

While these applications ? if they had been ?legitimate? applications ? would have cost $4225 per application in PTO filing fees for a grand total of $21,125 for all five applications, in this case, the ladies only paid the $325 per application fee for a single class of goods ? all other classes are noted as inactive due to an insufficient fee paid. So instead of wasting $21,125, the ladies only wasted $1,625.

I guess they will just have to go back to working at their Palm Desert retail clothing and jewelry store PINK CLUB®.

Full post as published by Las Vegas Trademark Attorney on August 27, 2009 (boomark / email).