DJ Khaled Files Trademark for WE THE BEST

If you follow DJ Khaled on Snapchat (and maybe I do) you already know they don't want him to have a federal trademark registration. But he filed an application anyway. Two applications, actually.

On January 25th, Khaled M. Khaled, through Sedlmayr & Associates (who has an impressive list of rap clients), filed a federal trademark application for DJ KHALED and WE THE BEST.

Sedlmayr filed the DJ KHALED trademark application in Class 009 for music recordings and Class 041 for entertainment services related to disk jockeying, live musical entertainment, and the hosting of nightclub parties. The WE THE BEST trademark was also filed in Class 009 and 041 for the same services, but included a listing in Class 025 for various clothing items (likely related to his We The Best Store).

Both of these applications indicated DJ Khaled is already using these trademarks in commerce, and those of you who are fans know this to be true. If these trademarks register (which they likely will), DJ Khaled will obtain the exclusive, nationwide rights to use DJ KHALED and WE THE BEST in conjunction with the goods and services listed on the applications (and on anything related to those goods or services). Major key.

MACKI GNAWS Trademark Filed For Dog Treats

If you sell or planned on selling dogs treats on Mackinac Island in Michigan, the most creative name for your product just got taken. On January 23rd and 24th, a quaint business known as Marc's Double Oven Bakery filed federal word and design trademark applications, respectively, for MACKI GNAWS in Class 031 for "dog treats."

The applicant smartly used an attorney to file these applications and I do not see any issues with either. Unless there is an existing registration for a mark similar to MACKI GNAWS (unlikely given the creativity behind the name) being used on goods related to dog treats, this mark should have no problem registering. When it does, this little business on Mackinac Island will obtain the exclusive right to use the term MACKI GNAWS on dog treats across the United States.

Fox Files Trademarks For Much Anticipated 24: Legacy

Just days before Fox announced Straight Out of Compton actor Corey Hawkins landed the starring role in 24: Legacy, the much anticipated reboot of Jack Bauer's 24, it filed two federal trademark applications for the show's title.

On January 22nd, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation filed the standard character mark 24: LEGACY in Class 041 for a variety of entertainment services related to a television show and in Class 009 for DVDs, downloadable versions of the show, and related software.

Fox filed both applications on an intent-to-use basis, obviously, because the show is not yet on the air. The company only announced the new show a week and a half ago, and within a week had filed these trademark applications.

The storyline on IMDB.com states "[a]ccording to Fox, the project will center on a military hero who encounters a troubled return to the U.S., compelling him to ask CTU for help in saving his life, and stopping what potentially could be one of the largest-scale terror attacks on American soil." 24: Legacy is slated for 12 episodes and has an estimated budget of $35,000,000.00.

What is Paramount's Alphaworld?

Is Paramount Pictures Corporation planning a large retail center and theme park? A federal trademark application filed by the company on January 21st suggest it might be. And the name would be ALPHAWORLD.

Paramount filed this trademark application in three different classes for:

1. Retail store and shop services featuring gifts (Class 035);
2. Leasing of shopping mall space within or adjacent to a theme park, namely, restaurants, nightclubs, retail shops, boutiques and movie theaters (Class 036); and
3. Amusement park and theme park services; Entertainment in the nature of an amusement park ride; Entertainment services in the nature of an amusement park attraction, namely, a themed area; Entertainment services in the nature of an amusement park show; Entertainment services, namely, arranging and conducting special events at an amusement park; Entertainment services, namely, arranging for ticket reservations for amusement park attractions; Provision of information relating to amusement park shows (Class 041).

Sounds like a Disney World or Universal Studios to me. According to Wikipedia, Paramount Parks once owned and operated five theme parks in North America, including the popular King's Island near me in Cincinnati. Currently, the company has proposed theme parks in Spain, South Korea, and the UK, but nothing in the United States (but maybe this application indicates otherwise).

Paramount Pictures Corporation filed this trademark application on an intent-to-use basis, so there is no guarantee Paramount's Alphaworld will open in this country. However, that basis does indicate the company has a bona fide intention to open such a park and is taking tangible steps in that direction (creating a business plan, looking for sites, speaking with developers and vendors, etc.).

This is the second theme park application I have blogged about, with Steve Erwin's Australia being the other. That trademark application, filed in July 2015, is still alive.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION - A Wine For Trademark Attorneys?

A wine club in Los Angeles may be selling the perfect wine for trademark attorneys based on a recent filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Club W, Inc. filed a federal trademark application for LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION in Class 033 for "wine" on January 20th.

According to the application, the company is currently selling this wine and has been doing so since October 2015. The specimen submitted with the application indicates the wine is a 2013 Zinfandel from Sierra Foothills, California.

Is this the perfect wine for trademark attorneys? Not only is the name more than fitting, but the wine apparently "packs a titanic punch with 16% alcohol." A perfect wine for trademark attorneys indeed...

Is Pan Am Coming Back?

Is the vintage Pan American World Airways making a return? Maybe, according to recent trademark applications filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Pan Am Airways, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, recently filed two federal trademark applications for the stylized Pan Am trademarks shown below.

The company filed the top design on January 15th and the bottom on January 18th. Both applications were filed in Class 039 for "Air transport; Air transport and storage of goods; Air transport services; Air transportation; Airline ticket reservation service."

Does this mean the Pan Am airline will soon be operating again? Both applications were filed on an intent-to-use basis, which means the company is not using these trademarks in commerce yet but has a bona fide intention to do so in the near future. Thus, it's not a certainty but it does mean this company is making some sort of plan to use these trademarks in conjunction with air transport services sometime soon.

However, it appears the company used trademark411.com to file these applications without an attorney. That's a bit strange for a sophisticated airline.

Interestingly, another company, Pan Am World Airways, Inc., filed an application for a similar mark (shown below) with an attorney. That mark was also filed in Class 039 for "Air transportation of passengers and freight" and was filed in February 2010 on an intent-to-use basis. The applicant has requested and received multiple extensions to file the final Statement of Use form showing the mark actually being used in commerce (which is required before the mark can actually register).

This applicant owns two other registrations for PAN AM as it relates to transportation by rail. Unfortunately for Pan Am Airways, LLC, there will be a conflict between the applications it just filed and this application due to the similarity of the marks and the use on the exact same services. Since Pan Am World Airways, Inc. filed its application well before Pan Am Airways, LLC, it has priority and the Trademark Office will not register Pan Am Airways, LLC's marks due to that conflict. The relationship between these two entities (if any) is unknown.

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Files 7 Trademark Applications

On January 17th, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) filed seven different federal trademark applications related to the Dulles and Reagan Airports. Those applications are seen below. The blank represents a logo design, which is also seen below.

The MWAA filed each trademark application in Class 039 for "airport services." All these applications are based on actual use in commerce, with the date of first use varying depending on the mark. For example, the date of first use for REAGAN NATIONAL is listed as February 6, 1998, which is the same date President Clinton signed legislation changing the airport's name. The date of first use for the logo seen above, on the other hand, is November 17, 2015.

According to the MWAA's website, "[t]he Authority's mission is to develop, promote, and operate safely Reagan National and Dulles International airports, continually striving to improve our efficiency, customer orientation, and the level of air service offered at National and Dulles." That mission apparently involves obtaining maximum legal protection for the airports' trademarks as well.

As I've blogged about before, this application demonstrates that government entities are entitled to obtain federal trademark registrations just like private businesses. There is one improve caveat, however. Nobody, not even a government entity, can obtain a federal trademark registration for a "flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof." See Section 2(b) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1052(b)). This is true "regardless of the identity of the applicant, that is, the statutory prohibition allows no exception even when the applicant is a government entity seeking to register its own flag, coat of arms, or other insignia." See TMEP 1204 and In re City of Houston, 731 F.3d 1326, 108 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2013).