LA Chargers Already Face Trademark Opposition To Their Name Over The Term 'L.A.'
Furnished content.
There may be nothing more frustrating than trademarks being granted for terms that serve as simple geographic identifiers. With a couple of recent stories revolving around names of cities, or acronyms of them, it's probably time to consider whether some kind of official reform of trademark rules needs to be undertaken to keep companies from locking up such broad terms for commercial purposes. And there may be at least a slim chance that this conversation is starting, with the high profile example of the newly minted Los Angeles Chargers NFL team serving as notice.It was only this past week that the Chargers finally announced what everyone already knew was going to happen: the team is moving to the city of angels. As is SOP for an organization of its size, the team filed trademark applications for several iterations of its team name, including the term "LA Chargers." And that, almost immediately, is where the problems began to arise.Unfortunately for the team, its “LA Chargers” trademark application ran into an issue. On Dec. 20, LA Gear, the ‘80s-era athletic apparel company, filed a Notice of Opposition with the Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board related to the apparel portion of the “LA Chargers” application, on the grounds that it conflicts with LA Gear’s trademarks, and is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the goods.In the opposition, the Chargers are referred to as “Applicant” and LA Gear is “Opposer.” The document lists 22 U.S. trademark registrations owned by LA Gear. The oldest dates back to 1985. Two of LA Gear’s registrations are in the form of logos that consist of the letters “LA” – meaning those logo registrations do not include the word “Gear.” This. Is. Ridiculous. Allowing for a monopoly on all things apparel over the acronym of the second largest city in the United States has absolutely zero to do with protecting the consuming public from confusion, no matter what LA Gear's opposition filing states. This is all to do with pushing the Chargers instead into some kind of lucrative licensing deal. And, for once, there is actually going to be some validity in common claims that failing to police the mark can result in it no longer being protected, particularly given that examples of LA Gear's failure in doing so includes examples analogous to the Chargers.Back in 2008, Major League Soccer’s LA Galaxy received a trademark for a logo that includes the words “LA Galaxy.” The Trademark Office records for that application show no opposition filed by LA Gear. It’s possible that the MLS team may have negotiated a private agreement with LA Gear to avoid these issues, and the Chargers/NFL haven’t been willing or able to do so. It seems more likely that LA Gear’s opposition to the LA Chargers trademark is a new tactic, and that the company intends to test the boundaries of its trademark rights in phrases including the word “LA,” at least as they apply to athletic apparel. And that's hopefully a test that it will flunk, should the Chargers seek to have LA Gear's trademark protections repealed. And they should be, just as the mark never should have been granted in the first place. Were employees of the Trademark Office to have simply asked themselves whether approving the LA Gear trademark application did more to serve the public or the applying company, the conclusion would have been clear, as would have been the appropriateness of rejecting the application to begin with. Instead, this must happen on the back end, hopefully with a challenge to the mark by the Chargers.Sadly, some are predicting that the team won't bother.LA Gear’s claim may be a bit of a stretch, but it’s not impossible that the Trademark Office – or a court, should this dispute go that far – would rule in its favor. With all the drama around the team’s departure from San Diego, I’d bet the Chargers will simply come to a settlement agreement with LA Gear rather than put their incredibly valuable brand at risk of an adverse court ruling. Here's hoping the team shows some backbone instead. No single entity ought to be able to control the acronym for a major city in this way.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 19-Jan-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Chicago Lawyer Sues City, Police Department Over Stingray Cellphone Surviellance
Furnished content.
Chicago attorney Jerry Boyle -- notably not representing himself -- is suing the city of Chicago and a number of police officials for constitutional violations stemming from the PD's Stingray use. It's a potential class action suit, but Boyle -- at least in his own case -- claims to have pinpointed exactly when his phone signal was intercepted by the police. Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica points out this detail in the lawsuit's claims:The 32-page lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Chicago on Thursday, specifically notes where and when the stingray was used, on January 15, 2015, “at approximately 8:00pm at the protest, near the 2200 block of West Ogden Avenue.”However, the civil complaint does not explain exactly how the plaintiff knows this information.“The evidence regarding CPD's use at that event is something that will be disclosed during the litigation,” Matt Topic, one of Boyle’s lawyers, e-mailed Ars. The allegations [PDF] don't contain any clue as to what exactly Boyle used to determine his phone signal was being intercepted, but there are more than few choices available to the privacy-conscious who may want to know if and when their signal is being rerouted. Hackers have put together their own tools to detect fake cell towers and SRLabs has produced an app called SnoopSnitch that puts that power right in your cellphone.What's undisputed is that the Chicago PD is in possession of regular IMSI catchers, as well as souped-up versions known as DRTboxes. Thanks to crowd-sourced FOIA activity, it's also known this equipment has been purchased with asset forfeiture funds in an effort to keep the PD's surveillance purchases from leaving as wide of a paper trail.What can also be inferred from the allegations is that the Chicago PD deployed its surveillance equipment on participants in First Amendment-protected activity, which may only add to the Constitutional fallout of this lawsuit. This surveillance also occurred more than a year before state legislation was passed requiring court orders for Stingray deployments.It will also be interesting to see what Boyle delivers as evidence his phone signal was grabbed by a Chicago PD Stingray. This will be essential to prove standing. Unfortunately, it will also have to be matched up with Stingray records held by the PD, which won't have much interest in turning those over to the court and possibly having them be made public.There's also a chance the PD won't have any records of this deployment. If the Stingray was searching for a specific number or numbers, it could have been in "catch and release" mode where every nearby number was grabbed by the cell tower spoofer, but only data related to the targeted numbers retained.Considering the years of opacity surrounding its Stingray use, this isn't going to be a fun legal battle for the Chicago PD. You can pretty much assume the FBI will take the lead in deciding what can or can't be presented in open court, as it has been granted this control with the non-disclosure agreement it makes every Stingray-purchasing law enforcement agency sign before it will allow them to deploy these devices.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 19-Jan-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|