Intellectual Property Law

However, as with many things in life, you get what you pay for.

When it comes to trademarks and locating potential conflicts and/or similarities, the SAM rule must be kept in mind.

What is the SAM rule?

Here's what the USPTO has to say about this:

Similarity in sound, appearance, or meaning may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion."

The dreaded likelihood of confusion conclusion means a refusal is on its way. To avoid that, comprehensive research should be conducted prior to filing.

What does similarity in Appearance mean? And how does the USPTO search engine fail in this respect?

"Similarity in appearance is one factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance despite the addition, deletion or substitution of letters or words." Click here to read more.

The USPTO provides an example of TRUCOOL (a synthetic coolant) being refused because it's likely to be confused with TURCOOL (cutting oil), in terms of appearance. Now these marks are decidedly different but the fact that the goods are similar & the marks' APPEARANCE is very close, a refusal was issued.

Flaw #2, Appearance:

That being established, let's do a search using the USPTO search engine. A search for TRUCOOL brings up 3 marks, one of them being the now abandoned TRUCOOL in question.

But it does NOT bring up TURCOOL.

So let's say TRUCOOL was your mark & you conducted a search at the USPTO. You even searched variations, like TrueCool (no TURCOOL here), Tru Kool (no, not there) and Troo Cool (nope & now TruCool doesn't even show up). You'd mistakenly think that the name was available.

Here's one example of why comprehensive research is important.

Click to read about the Sound flaw. Click to read about the Meaning flaw.

Full post as published by TradeMark Express: A Daily Blog on July 23, 2008 (boomark / email).