Skip to main content

OBX loses trademark battle

By STEVE SZKOTAK Associated Press Writer
February 27, 2009
RICHMOND, Va. - The oval bumper sticker with the letters OBX has become as synonymous with North Carolina's Outer Banks. The abbreviation also created a successful business for James Douglas, but its proliferation has made it a tough trademark to defend. On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bicast Inc. didn't infringe on a trademark when it began selling bumping stickers with the text "OB Xtreme." Douglas came up with the OBX abbreviation in 1994, borrowing the idea from similar shorthands used in Europe. He initially gave the stickers away, but later formed OBX-Stock and affixed the letters to bumper stickers that celebrate the fishing and vacation destination. OBX-Stock had annual revenue in 2004 topping $1 million.
The U.S. District Court in Raleigh, N.C., found in June 2006 that OBX was either generic or a descriptive for North Carolina's 200 miles of barrier islands and was not a valid trademark, and the appeals panel agreed. "Virtually every kind of business advertising at the Outer Banks identifies the Outer Banks geographical area with the 'OBX' abbreviation," the appeals court wrote. In 1998, OBX-Stock began attempts to register OBX as a trademark and, with the clout of North Carolina's congressional delegation, eventually won trademark protection for the three letters. The company then sought to control the use of the abbreviation, but "the extensive use of OBX made these attempts futile," wrote Judge Paul V. Niemeyer in the unanimous decision. Bicast became a target of OBX-Stock after it began printing oval stickers bearing "OB Xtreme" in pink script to denote extreme sports such as windsurfing. The court wrote that OBX-Stock's trademark claim was weakened by the fact that the OBX letters were affixed to stickers and souvenirs not as a company product, but as an indication of its geographic origin--the Outer Banks. The court also didn't put much stock in the company's trademark registrations because the company's first five applications were rejected as "nothing more than an alternative to Outer Banks and the terms were used 'interchangeably."'

Source:http://115.126.5.200:8080/images/in.php?www=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailypress.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fvirginia%2Fdp-va--obx-trademark0227feb27%2C0%2C7406928.story%3F34sf%3D1238

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

IPAB has allowed an appeal and granted patent to Pfizer for Tofacitinib and its salts

                                                    In a decision dated 21st August 2020 IPAB vide its  Order  has allowed an appeal and granted Patent  to Appellant M/s. PFIZER PRODUCTS INC., USA  for Tofacitinib and its salts. The appeal is against the   order dated 3 rd  September 2015 passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, whereby the Appellant’s Indian patent application no. 00991/MUMNP/2003 was rejected on the ground that it is hit by section 13(1)(b) and being non-patentable under section 3(d). The Appellant requested for an urgent hearing of the matter and IPAB considered the request for urgent hearing and passed the present order.  This Patent application claimed the compound 3-{(3R,4R)-4-Methyl-3-[methyl-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)-amino]-piper...

Tata's Herbal Tea fails to get patent protection

The patent office has refused to grant a patent to Tata Global Beverages (formerly known as Tata Tea) for its 'invention' regarding a process for preparation of flavoured herbal tea. Based on the opposition filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and TATA Tea failed to provide sufficiency of disclosure of the invention the Controller of Patents refused to grant patent.   Tata Global  Beverages, the patent application has claimed a new flavoured herbal tea composition comprising 1% to 8% of Darjeeling Broken, 10% to 50% of flavour concentrate and the rest being tea particles. Tata Global Beverages had submitted the patent filing without appropriate clarification for the unique taste for the tea composition. It was unable to find out the technical advancement of the application as compared to the existing knowledge. Thus controller had to refuse the grant of patent. Source:  http://www.financialexpress.com/article/markets/commodities/tata-global-bev...

Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh Tenure as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) extended for Another three months

  The Supreme Court on September 16, 2020 has extended the tenure of Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board)  for another three months.  Justice Manmohan Singh was appointed on July 2017 for a term of three years.  However as per the rules governing the appointment his term would come to an end on attaining retirement age of 65 years on 22nd September 2019. Since Government has not appointed any Chairman thereafter, on a Petition by International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) the Supreme Court has extended his term for another year i.e, till 21st September 2020 as the Petitioner claimed that IPAB will be Defunct with his retirement thereby causing hardship several litigants. The Central Government has notified in March 2020 that Justice Singh will continue as the chairman of IPAB up to September 21, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.  Now with this extension, Ho...