I'm not sure whether we should be alarmed, or just laugh
ourselves silly! Maybe both.... :-) "Seafoam green" is a term
which has been used for decades to describe a particular shade of
Tourmaline. That description is, by definition, a part of the
public domain. The fact that someone managed to trademark such a
name demonstrates profound ignorance on the part of the bureaucrats
at the USPTO.
FAIR WARNING: This is probably more about trademarks than you want
to know but it isn’t even a gnat on the tip of the iceberg.
Just for sport I looked up Seafoam on the www.uspto.gov trademark
search page and found the following trademark registration in
process. Publication for opposition on SEAFOAM TOURMALINE occurred
just the middle of last month so if anyone feels they want to oppose
it they still can.
Typed Drawing
Word Mark SEAFOAM TOURMALINE
Goods and Services IC 014. US 002 027 028 050. G & S: Precious gemstones,
namely, light mint-green tourmaline. FIRST USE: 19910500. FIRST USE IN
COMMERCE: 19910500
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75637462
Filing Date February 10, 1999
Published for Opposition March 19, 2002
Owner (APPLICANT) COLUMBIA GEM HOUSE, INC./ TRIGEM DESIGNS CORPORATION
WASHINGTON P.O. BOX 3889 VANCOUVER WASHINGTON 98662
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “TOURMALINE”
APART
FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Here’s what they had to do to get that 2(f) designation in which
they claim their exclusive use of SEAFOAM TOURMALINE for at least 5
years:
=A72.41 Proof of distinctiveness under =A72(f).
(a) When registration is sought of a mark which would be
unregistrable by reason of =A72(e) of the Act but which is said by
applicant to have become distinctive in commerce of the goods or
services set forth in the application, applicant may, in support of
registrability, submit with the application, or in response to a
request for evidence or to a refusal to register, affidavits, or
declarations in accordance with =A72.20, depositions, or other
appropriate evidence showing duration, extent and nature of use in
commerce and advertising expenditures in connection therewith
(identifying types of media and attaching typical advertisements),
and affidavits, or declarations in accordance with =A72.20, letters or
statements from the trade or public, or both, or other appropriate
evidence tending to show that the mark distinguishes such goods.
(b) In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more prior
registrations on the Principal Register or under the Act of 1905 of
the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of
distinctiveness. Also, if the mark is said to have become distinctive
of applicant=92s goods by reason of substantially exclusive and
continuous use in commerce thereof by applicant for the five years
before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made, a
showing by way of statements which are verified or which include
declarations in accordance with =A72.20, in the application may, in
appropriate cases, be accepted as prima facie evidence of
distinctiveness. In each of these situations, however, further
evidence may be required.
The 2(e) referred to above is: (e) Consists of a mark which (1) when
used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely
descriptive …
To oppose the registration you must do the following before April 19
and apparently file a $300 fee with it.
(a) The opposition must set forth a short and plain statement showing
why the opposer believes it would be damaged by the registration of
the opposed mark and state the grounds for opposition. A duplicate
copy of the opposition, including exhibits, shall be filed with the
opposition. (b) Oppositions to different applications owned by the
same party may be joined in a consolidated opposition when
appropriate, but the required fee must be included for each party
joined as opposer for each class in which registration is opposed in
each application against which the opposition is filed.
I’m getting a couple of trademark questions answered (I hope) on a
different list and will pass them along when I get them.
James E. White