Trademark Question

Trademark Question - Situation

"cbc"	12/9/2004 5:17:31 AM
Trademark Question / Situation I made a previous post regarding the use of a one word Servicemark in a particular industry, and the potential to have that mark removed from the principal register. Instead of dealing in hypotheticals I will disclose that the word is "UNITED" and the industry is real estate brokerage. I have applied for a service mark using the term UNITED, in the same industry, and it has been opposed. The opposer also owns the marks UNITED COUNTRY, UNITED COUNRTY REAL ESTATE which is a franchising company, and UNITED NATIONAL REAL ESTATE. They claim this forms a family of marks bearing the common term UNITED. My mark is "REALTY UNITED" (words only) which is used in franchising services and office development. There are literally hundreds of firms not affiliated with the trademark holder that use the term UNITED predominately in their name. There are no firms, except mine, that use the unique combination of the terms REALTY and UNITED in that adjoining order as a trade name. (By example there are over 60 existing non-affiliated "United Realty" firms alone operating throughout the country.) A complete history of the opposition and the documents filed are located on the TTAB site here: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91158548&pty=OPP Please note that item #9 should read DEF's (defendants), not PLS (plantiffs) I am interested in getting various points of view on this situation because it has the potential of having a wide-spread impact on the industry, and may even get the term marked as 'generic' by the USPTO. 'United' is a common term so widely used that it could be considered generic. I of course want my servicemark on the principal register. My personal view is that the registration of the term UNITED should never have occurred since there were numerous other firms utilizing that term predominantly at time of registration. This may be a basis for removal from the principal register. Do you think removal is possible? What is your view on the use of the term UNITED in real estate?



"PTRAVEL"	12/9/2004 9:03:56 AM
"cbc" <realsysLLC@aol.com> wrote in message news:1102598251.357160.235700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... Trademark Question / Situation No licensed attorney (including myself) can or will give you specific advice, as we can't advise non-clients. Are you really going to bet your business on advice given by anonymous lay people over the internet?



"cbc"	12/9/2004 9:40:53 AM
PTRAVEL wrote: "cbc" <realsysLLC@aol.com> wrote in message news:1102598251.357160.235700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... No licensed attorney (including myself) can or will give you specific advice, as we can't advise non-clients. Are you really going to bet your business on advice given by anonymous lay people over the internet? No I'm not. What I was hoping to achieve with this post was to get some points of view from people regarding the removal of the term from the principal register and the use of the term in the industry.



"PTRAVEL"	12/9/2004 10:37:23 AM
"cbc" <realsysLLC@aol.com> wrote in message news:1102614053.678207.147170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... PTRAVEL wrote: your No I'm not. What I was hoping to achieve with this post was to get some points of view from people regarding the removal of the term from the principal register and the use of the term in the industry. Trademark law is arcane and very fact-intensive. Getting opinions from lay persons on this forum is no different than asking your friends or family what they think. You need the opinion of an intellectual property attorney, and none will provide that opinion over the internet to a non-client. If you call your local bar association, they will be able to refer you to competent counsel who will, almost certainly, provide a free initial consultation, and can give you an informed and accurate opinion for a very nominal amount. Defending oppositions before the TTAB can be involved and costly. It's worth investing a few hours of your time and, perhaps, a couple of hundred dollars to find out exactly what your options are.



"Messalina"	12/9/2004 4:53:26 PM
cbc wrote: Trademark Question / Situation I made a previous post regarding the use of a one word Servicemark in a particular industry, and the potential to have that mark removed from the principal register. Instead of dealing in hypotheticals I will disclose that the word is "UNITED" and the industry is real estate brokerage. I have applied for a service mark using the term UNITED, in the same industry, and it has been opposed. The opposer also owns the marks UNITED COUNTRY, UNITED COUNRTY REAL ESTATE which is a franchising company, and UNITED NATIONAL REAL ESTATE. They claim this forms a family of marks bearing the common term UNITED. My mark is "REALTY UNITED" (words only) which is used in franchising services and office development. There are literally hundreds of firms not affiliated with the trademark holder that use the term UNITED predominately in their name. There are no firms, except mine, that use the unique combination of the terms REALTY and UNITED in that adjoining order as a trade name. (By example there are over 60 existing non-affiliated "United Realty" firms alone operating throughout the country.) A complete history of the opposition and the documents filed are located on the TTAB site here: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91158548&pty=OPP Please note that item #9 should read DEF's (defendants), not PLS (plantiffs) I am interested in getting various points of view on this situation because it has the potential of having a wide-spread impact on the industry, and may even get the term marked as 'generic' by the USPTO. 'United' is a common term so widely used that it could be considered generic. I of course want my servicemark on the principal register. My personal view is that the registration of the term UNITED should never have occurred since there were numerous other firms utilizing that term predominantly at time of registration. This may be a basis for removal from the principal register. Do you think removal is possible? What is your view on the use of the term UNITED in real estate? This is far too complicated a matter for Usenet. Its time to get a real attorney. Its likely to cost a bit, too. Mez



"Richard"	12/9/2004 7:42:18 PM
cbc wrote: Trademark Question / Situation I made a previous post regarding the use of a one word Servicemark in a particular industry, and the potential to have that mark removed from the principal register. As a pure layman with no legal license, I'd have to say that here is a case of confusion. "Realty United" and "United Realty" would lead the consumer to believe both are the same. Even more so if both are franchised nationally. We already have "Century 21". What if someone comes along with "21st Century" real estate? Confusion for sure. You argue that others use the word "United". That is because the word is to common and therefor not protected. Although a certain licensed trademark attorney around here would argue otherwise. The single word is not the trademark. The trademark is the entire set of words identifying the product. Therfor, "United towing" can exist right beside "United Book sales". Pick up you your local phone book and look up the word United. How many hundreds of listings do you find for it? Can they all claim trademark infringement? I don't think so. As has been stated here already, you need the opinion of a trademark attorney, not from us dodos here..

Report this post for offensive content