• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

It’s Not Easy Being Green

Submitted by Alexis Patterson on October 28, 2012 – 11:25 AM6235No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F10%2F28%2Fits-not-easy-being-green%2FIt%E2%80%99s+Not+Easy+Being+Green2012-10-28+15%3A25%3A34Alexis+Pattersonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6235

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refused to register the trademark “Verde” to Verde Power Supply Inc. The Board stated that the suggested trademark, when “used in connection with the company’s goods[,] is only descriptive.” In January of 2010, Verde Power Supply put in an application to register the trademark for “electrical and electronic devices for power supply technology, including power supply units, current-voltage converters, DC converters and electronic power supply circuitry.”

During the registration process, Verde Power Supply failed to provide the examiner with requested information. This information pertained to Verde Power Supply’s business operations. Verde Power Supply stated that if it disclosed its business operations, the company would have revealed trade secrets. Subsequently, the examining attorney asked “whether the goods are energy efficient or environmentally friendly.” Verde Power Supply did not respond to the inquiry, provide any information relating to the question, or mention it on appeal

Answering the question was important because it concerns facts that relate to the descriptiveness. In fact, not complying with a legitimate request for information or materials can be a valid basis for denying registration of the trademark. The Board said that it made “the presumption that the answers to the examining attorney’s questions would be unfavorable to applicant, and that applicant’s goods are both environmentally friendly and energy efficient.”

The Board maintained that the trademark “Verde” would signify to consumers that the electronic devices and other electrical equipment are environmentally friendly. However, not every agreed with the decision to reject the trademark registration. TTAB Judge Seeherman dissented. The Judge stated that the PTO “failed to prove that ‘Verde Power Supply’ is merely descriptive.” Judge Seeherman believes that the Office did not show that “Spanish-speaking purchasers of Verde Power Supply’s goods would understand “Verde” as having the meaning of energy efficient or environmentally friendly, or that those purchasers would immediately understand from the trademark at that the goods have those qualities.” What are your thoughts? Is “Verde” merely descriptive or is Judge Seeherman correct?

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Alexis Patterson

Alexis Patterson is a 2L at the American University Washington College of Law and the 2012-2013 Vice President of the Intellectual Property Law Society. She has an interest in intellectual property law, especially as it relates to trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights. Alexis volunteered for the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and is a blogger for the IP Brief. She also serves as a team director for the Moot Court Honor Society Executive Board. Alexis received her B.A. in Government and Politics from St. John’s University. She is from Miami, FL.

Alexis Patterson has written 8 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision, which reasoned that the drug posed public health and safety concerns, creates serious patent implications with regard to generic drugs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

YouTube’s New and Improved Content ID System Lindecent Proposal: The Race to Trademark “Linsanity” Piracy, Pornography and Conspiracy:  How Judges Are Standing Up to Copyright Trolls “Hungry Hobbit” Restaurant Asked to Change Name Unauthorized Stock Photo Use More Likely to Get Infringers in Hot Water Than Music or Video Downloading Norton for Toasters Vringo Seeking Royalty Rate Increase Forever 21 vs. WTForever 21: Clothing Store Threatens Blog with Lawsuit, Claiming Trademark Infringement and Dilution
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay
  • Oh, That’s Different … Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive”

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License