https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp111
Nintendo is having its best year at retail since the release of the Wii, and while it may be hard to get your hands on their classic and new systems, there's no debating that the Nintendo Switch has been a positive development for this company. Of course, as with any new huge product line, Nintendo has sought trademark registration for the Switch in the U.S. and other jurisdictions.
However, that trademark registration hit a snag recently in the U.S. when an opposition was filed against the allowed application for Switch. Every allowed trademark application goes through a short publication period where third parties can oppose the mark before a final registration occurs, and that's what happened here. The opposing party is Life Covenant Church Inc., an Oklahoma based chain of megachurches, which probably not exactly who you would expect. Life Covenant has a registration from 2005 for the word Switch, a name used by the church network for youth programs aimed at teenagers.
Nintendo's application covers a wide sprawling list of goods and services in different classes, including video games, toys, office supplies, internet services, software, and the like. Thus, Life Covenant has argued that the overlap between this sprawling list from Nintendo and their own trademark registration could lead to consumer confusion regarding these two parties being in some way connected, associated, or working together. That may seem far fetched to a common man, but this is the risk when big companies try to lock down important marks in tons of fields, not just their primary field, in this case video games.
So how does this play out? The parties could agree to co-exist, which might happen if Nintendo offers some compensation for use of the senior user's registered trademark. Alternatively, some of the goods and services covered by Nintendo's application could be deleted out to try and avoid the overlap between the parties. It's probably a minor hitch for the Switch branding, but perhaps this conflict could go to the courts as well if the parties don't become amicable. A church against video games...it's made for TV court drama already!
The Bottom Line is, even big companies need to be careful when tailoring their description of goods and services in trademark applications. If you shoot too broadly for the sake of branding, you risk some big expense and annoyances in the opposition process in the U.S. and other countries.
And now, this: (insert "Dave's not here, man" bumper)
MKB asked last week how we legally solve the local liability laws for self-driving cars. Tom gave a great answer regarding the cars just sending money into the current insurance system, but there's other options as well. Many states already allow for alternatives like posting an amount of bond money similar to minimum coverage limits, or self-insurance for fleets of vehicles. If self-driving cars don't fit neatly into a current exception or alternative, we could write new ones in state or federal law. Also, a different system could be made where cars pay taxes into a government fund that helps cover damages when accidents occur...it would dovetail with a government-assisted health care system, for example. The short answer is, if the current laws don't work right, that's what legislators are elected for, to change them! Thanks for your question.
----------------------------------
Do you have a question? Send it in!
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
No comments:
Post a Comment