Tag: Industry

New York Toy Fair Is Approaching. Are You Legally Prepared?

February 17, 2018 is fast approaching.  Anyone who is anyone in the toy industry will be at Javits Convention Center showcasing the latest and greatest in toy innovation.  All businesses in the toy industry are putting the final touches on their displays and their presentations.  Is a meeting with the company’s lawyer on the pre-show checklist?  If not, why not?

Consulting with the Company’s lawyer may save a company tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The following is a short discussion of some of the items that should be on every toy company’s “To-Do” list prior to attending Day One of the New York Toy Fair.

  1. Intellectual Property.

At the very least, the company should consider applying for a trademark registration for the name of the company and its products.  Unfortunately, the number one thing most companies forget or ignore until there is a legal battle ensuing is to properly protect the Company’s intellectual property, such as its name and the names of its products.  Trademarks for product names are fairly inexpensive to search and protect, and yet, may cost a company dearly if those names were to become the subject of a cease and desist letter and resulting federal court infringement litigation.  We defended a toy manufacturer in a trademark infringement lawsuit that allegedly infringed a competitor’s trademark.  After two years and in excess of $50,000 in legal fees (pretty inexpensive in trademark dispute litigation) the matter was resolved.  Consulting with counsel and filing the appropriate trademark applications could have avoided the huge waste of time and expense.

Another form of legal protection often overlooked is copyright for the toy’s design.   If the design meets the requirements of a sculptural work, such as a plush toy design, then copyright can be a powerful tool in locking out your competition from the use of designs that are “substantially similar”.  Prior to any trade show, toy companies must identify and protect its intellectual property, or risk the very goodwill of the company.  Intellectual property can give a company significant value.

  1. Privacy and Security.

Toy companies, like all companies, must take steps to protect the data of the company, minimize the risk of a breach, and put in place technological and legal measures designed to decrease liability in the event a breach does occur.  A comprehensive privacy program including but not limited to updated privacy notices, terms and conditions, internal policies, incident response plans and insurance coverage all geared toward reducing risk of legal liability is imperative if the company is to survive.  If the toys being showcased are “smart” or “connected” toys, privacy and security issues involving the Internet of Things will be at the forefront of manufacturers’, retailers’, and consumers’ minds.  Retailers seeking to avoid liability undoubtedly will have questions as to how the software works, what, if any, personally identifiable data is collected, how is it being stored, retained and destroyed.  Additionally, if a third party vendor will be used to provide software for a smart or connected toy, the company must seek counsel knowledgeable in privacy and security in order to reduce legal risk to the company that may result from the use of such software.

  1. Labeling / Advertising.

Federal law requires product packaging and certain advertisements for toys and games intended for use by children 12 years of age and under to display cautionary statements regarding choking and other hazards.  Safety related labeling and advertising for toys generally depends upon the category of toy and the age of the child for which the toy is intended.  It is imperative that toy companies be familiar with these laws and engage counsel who is familiar.

For more information, please contact:

Natalie A. Remien at:

(312) 368-0100 or nremien@lgattorneys.com.

Do Trademarks Create a Brand Monopoly?

We are all familiar with certain brands: Huggies, Apple, M&Ms, Sony, Gucci, Exxon, and more.  We are bombarded with advertisements daily through our mobile devices and televisions that solidify this fame by drawing a strong connection in the minds of the consumers between the products and the companies who produce them.  The law gives heightened protection to the owners of famous trademarks, meaning that these companies may be able to prevent others from using similar marks for a wider scope of products or services than the scope of the goods and services contained within the trademark registrations they own.

But, what is the scope of protection for a famous mark, and where does it end?  Do the owners of famous brands have such broad brand extension so as to create a monopoly on these brands across all categories of products and services?  This article examines the requirements to establish a mark as “famous”, the contexts in which fame comes into play, and the extent to which the owners of famous marks enjoy broadened protection.

According to the Lanham Act, in order for a mark to be considered famous, it must be “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States.”  15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A).  The degree of fame must exist in the general marketplace, not in a niche market.   Fame that is limited to a particular channel of trade, segment of industry or service, or geographic region is not sufficient to meet that standard.

The breadth of protection and scope of famous trademarks are evaluated differently depending upon the context of the proceeding.  For example, in a trademark infringement case in court, fame is a significant factor in determining the strength of a mark. However, the strength of the mark is only one factor among many.  The likelihood of confusion test is an equitable balancing test and no single factor is dispositive.  The role of fame in Trademark Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings is even more significant, where fame is a dominant factor, and the fame of an opposer’s mark must be “accorded full weight” in Trademark Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings.  Stronger yet, is the role of fame in a Trademark Dilution litigation context, where fame of the trademark at issue is a threshold matter.  Additionally, pursuant to the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, fame is a significant factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of dilution by blurring.

The following factors, if present, tend to suggest that a mark may not qualify as “famous” under the Lanham Act:  (1) extensive third party use, and (2)  whether the terms are in common use as marks, or whether a “distinct brand name” appears alongside the mark.

As more and more brands become “household names”, trademark owners should be aware that choosing a brand that has any connotation or sounds remotely like a famous brand, even if it is not in the relevant industry, may be problematic.

To discuss trademarks and branding generally, please contact:

Natalie A. Remien at:

nremien@lgattorneys.com or 312-368-0100

testimonials

"We've worked with Levin Ginsburg since the 1980s...we have grown with them and have a very high level of comfort and confidence with this firm." Jay Nichols, President,
Badger Murphy
"Astute, responsive and practical. Those are three reasons why we work with Levin Ginsburg." Bryan L. Oyster, V.P. and General Manager,
Bentley Forbes