Back again is Towergate’s compilation of Top Opposing Firms, based upon the correspondent at filing of all oppositions in 2015. Compared to previous years, there are a number of change-ups in the lineup, and firms not previously noted in our list of years past. Kudos to all! For the first time, we are showing just the relative rankings of the top 40 opposition-filing firms, without further details given of each of their oppositions. If you’d like further details, please contact us. One of the most significant changes to note is that the firm Cowan Liebowitz and Latman slipped to second rank, after many years of being the top opposing firm (thanks to MLB). Compared to 2014 and years prior, the firm’s numbers have dropped substantially whilst those of Kilpatick Townsend and Stockton have increased. Kilpatrick’s oppositions have been mainly fueled by owners Instagram, Oracle, and Occulus VR. 2(d) Citations, refusals, and opposition filings are good benchmarks of your firm’s performance relative to other firms within the industry. Subscribe to our popular 2(d) Citation Watch or Bulk TM Watch services and watch your IP practice grow! Here’s a comparison chart of Top Opposing Firms in 2014.
I’m partial to conundrums, I admit. Which makes this find doubly interesting, as on the surface it looks like a clever and playful take on retail fashion branding and trademarks. Perhaps there is more to it than that? The case in point is a fascinating example because the most obvious expression of the retail experience is antithetical to most; the brand itself. It’s unabashedly FAKE. No joke, that’s the name! And to prove its veracity there is even an ersatz superscript circle-F at the top-left of the logo (antithetically smart, eh? And soooo NOT top-right!) According to the meagre publicity I was able to find, the concept here was to offer a counter culture aesthetic/style to a young and urban male generation; one that elicits strong reactions. Many of their clothing products are satirical knockoffs that mock a variety of luxe brands. There are signs that denote FAKE is “faux real” and a “marque de confiance” (a trusted brand). It’s very creative, to be sure. Subversive, even. What you also need to know is that the entire concept and reality of the establishment has been backed to some degree by a mysterious group called The Medium, a self titled multi-media artist […]
Here’s a example of a frequent error that pro se applicants make (those that file their own applications rather than filing through a correspondent-attorney or firm): Assuming that they can bank on their familial name to register a mark that may otherwise conflict one or more existing registrations. In this example, TESLA POWER for DC generators (in class 7) was filed in April 2015 by owner DARIUS TESLOVICH, only to be refused by the examiner citing registrations TESLA and TESLA. Notwithstanding whether Mr. Teslovich conducted even the most basic clearance search, it’s safe to assume that any IP attorney would have advised against filing this application, isn’t it? Similarly, what if the name in question was Applovitch or Applebaum, wanting to file an application for computers, mobile devices, or even baked goods? Wouldn’t the same obstacles to registration be presented to the applicant? Or, is it theoretically possible that in this case the applicant has a viable application (perhaps even co-exisitence)? If so, applicant clearly needs representation to advance his cause. Any takers? By the way, Towergate can provide pro se refusal data or similar notifications to interested firms that might wish to actively pursue such opportunities with and on behalf of pro se applicants.