Huddles

This is precisely what this person is selling, a HUD used for dancing/animations, just like mine. It even looks a bit like mine in layout.

Did he answer you Keiki?

I prefer to keep my discussions with that person private. We had a constructive conversation about it. We don't see eye to eye, and we don't have a resolution at the moment. That's about as much detail as I think I should share.

This simply isn't true.

The number 28 I quoted was for the exact term "cafe". If I look for trademarks containing the word cafe, then there are over 6000. Now some of those 28 instances were for graphic logos for which the word "cafe" was the only identifying text, but others were specifically for the text "cafe", no graphics, no extra words.

Your premise that there could be only one instance of the trademark is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way trademarks work. A trademark is almost always specific to a given market. The market can be defined in terms of geography, or product type, or both. Thus two people can trademark the same word or phrase, as long as they're being used in different markets. "Focus" is trademarked by Ciba Vision for a brand of contact lenses, and by Ford Motor Company for a model of car. It's rare that a single word trademark could be so broad as to be exclusive, but Disney comes to mind.

This is not quite true. Madhu mentioned this in the middle of one of his posts, but I thought it worth mentioning explicitly.

In the US, registration is required for enforcement in federal court, but they can be enforced in state court without it. See http://www.uspto.gov/go/tac/doc/basic/register.htm .

By the way, it took me under a minute to find that web site. I'm glad I did, because I hadn't known that registration is required to bring action in federal court. But given the amount of misinformation here (and elsewhere in the forum, on a variety of subjects), I really wish people would take a minute or two to verify what they're claiming before posting it. Otherwise, you're part of the misinformation problem.

This is a good question. The important thing to keep in mind is that trademark registrations are quite specific as to the field of use - the goods and services with which the registration is associated.

So, if you were to attempt to register HAPPY CUP CAFE for cafe services, you would definitely have to disclaim CAFE, as it is entirely descriptive of the services. You may or may not have to disclaim CUP; I can see arguments either way but I'd be comfortable arguing with the trademark office about it.

However, I think you would be unlikely to be required to disclaim HAPPY, even though it is an ordinary everyday word. The reason for this is that used *in connection with the specified services* - cafe services - it is suggestive, rather than descriptive. "Suggestive" means more that evokes a feeling or mood, rather than plainly describing the services.

Suggestive use of ordinary language in registered trademarks is okay - descriptive is not okay (wtihout more). The line between suggestive and descriptive is a bit of a judgment call. Just off the cuff, though, to make up some examples, I'd say HAPPY CUP CAFE - HAPPY is suggestive; COFFEE CUP CAFE - coffee is descriptive; STEAMY CUP CAFE - a tougher call; I'd expect a descriptiveness objection from the office but I might be willing to fight about it a little.

A quick-and-dirty test for descriptiveness is: Can you convey the basic features of the product or service without using that word? If not, it's descriptive, and it wouldn't be fair for the law to permit you to exclude your competitors from using it. HAPPY is not a word that one necessarily needs to describe the goods and services on offer at a cafe, and that's why it's not descriptive. It might be delightfully evocative and effective at making potential customers think they'd want to go there, but that just makes it a good trademark - not necessarily a descriptive one.