Meet Little Debbie

In preparing for my presentation on how Florida’s vote on medical marijuana will affect intellectual property issues within Florida, I got the cliche idea to maybe pass out non-medicated brownies at my presentation.  I know.

But, before discounting the idea, I thought about Little Debbie’s “Cosmic Brownies”:

brownies_cosmic-2wc9v5

Then, like a true obsessed trademark attorney, I wondered if Little Debbie had a trademark registration as I would not be surprised if “cosmic brownies” might be a term used to brand medicated brownies.  Sure enough, after learning that the Little Debbie brand is actually owned by McKee Foods Kingman, Inc., I found the registration for COSMIC for use with brownies and other snacks:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76479218&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

That led me to another awesome discovery – Little Debbie is real!  Certain Little Debbie treats are a guilty pleasure of mine.  Oatmeal Cream Pies, Christmas Trees, etc – I’ll eat em.  So, learning that this childhood hero is real, well, it was a good day.

How did I find out she is real?  No, I didn’t simply read the Little Debbie website.  It was this little statement in some of the USPTO records for registrations for “LITTLE DEBBIE”:  “Little Debbie” identifies Debbie McKee-Fowler, a living individual whose consent is of record. The portrait or likeness shown in the mark identifies Debbie McKee-Fowler, a living individual whose consent to register is made of record.”

As I blogged HERE, if a mark identifies a living individual, consent must be granted to use the name or likeness of that individual before a registration will issue.

Here’s how “Little Debbie” looks now:

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/real-life-little-debbie_n_7597256.html

Pretty cool!

Prince and Chyna – Digital Ashes

Following news of Prince’s death, the USPTO posted the following image on Facebook about Prince’s intellectual property portfolio:

uspto

(Original HERE)

That was an interesting post, and kudos to the USPTO for posting it.  Who knew Prince had a design patent for a keytar?

Sadly, Chyna was not mentioned. She also died within the last 24 hours, and she had some IP. Well, actually, the registered trademarks for CHYNA were owned by the WWF/WWE, her former employer. Even more sad is that they all appear to be “dead” marks, meaning that they were not renewed for some reason:

chyna

When a company no longer uses a brand, it makes sense to stop paying the few-hundred dollars in fees between the 5th and 6th years of registration and every 10 years thereafter. In fact, if a company has no intention of continuing to use a mark, and if they have in fact stopped using it, then it would be improper to renew the registrations.  In this case all of the registrations were initiated around 2001, and they were all abandoned in 2009.  At that point she has already started the next phase of her career – adult film and reality TV.  But there is something morose about seeing the abandoned trademark registrations in the wake of her death when there were rumors that Chyna would wrestle again one day, or at least be inducted into the wrestling hall of fame.

From the graphic above, here are the links to the various registrations:

For “Toy action figures, bendable toys, bean bag bears, bowling balls, pool cues

For “PRERECORDED VIDEOTAPES AND CASSETTES FEATURING SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT

For “CLOTHING, NAMELY, SHIRTS

For “BOOKS IN THE FIELD OF SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT; FOLDERS; FRAMED PICTURES; POSTERS; TRADING CARDS; COMIC BOOKS; CUSTOMIZED PERSONAL CHECKS

For “Entertainment Services, namely, wrestling exhibits and performances by a professional wrestler/entertainer

New take on an old (infringing?) idea

I read about a recently-published patent application from Apple that will allow an audio device (presumably an i-Device) to “self-censor” explicit content.  The application is titled “Management, Replacement and Removal of Explicit Lyrics during Audio Playback,” and you can read the application HERE.

apple-fig1
Figure 1 from the patent application

Here is the abstract from the application:

Unwanted audio, such as explicit language, may be removed during audio playback. An audio player may identify and remove unwanted audio while playing an audio stream. Unwanted audio may be replaced with alternate audio, such as non-explicit lyrics, a “beep”, or silence. Metadata may be used to describe the location of unwanted audio within an audio stream to enable the removal or replacement of the unwanted audio with alternate audio. An audio player may switch between clean and explicit versions of a recording based on the locations described in the metadata. The metadata, as well as both the clean and explicit versions of the audio data, may be part of a single audio file, or the metadata may be separate from the audio data. Additionally, real-time recognition analysis may be used to identify unwanted audio during audio playback.

That description immediately reminded me of an old copyright infringement case that was brought on behalf of Hollywood movie directors who objected to a service called “CleanFlicks.”  CleanFlicks would purchase DVDs of movies, edit out the “objectionable” content, and then sell or rent the “clean” versions.  Ultimately, this practice was considered copyright infringement.  Here’s a brief analysis of the case from the Copyright Office.  From the analysis:

The court held that public distribution of edited versions of plaintiffs’ films for the purpose of eliminating objectionable content did not constitute fair use. It ruled that the edited film versions were not transformative because they added nothing new to the originals. It further held that the “amount and substantiality” factor weighed against a finding of fair use because the movies were copied in their entirety for non-transformative use. Regarding the fourth factor, plaintiffs claimed that there was no adverse effect on the market for the films because they maintained a one-to-one ratio between original and edited films, and that but for their editing, the defendants would not have sold those particular original copies. The court, however, stated that this argument ignored the defendants’ “right to control the content of the copyrighted work,” and further remarked that “[w]hether these films should be edited in a manner that would make them acceptable to more of the public … is a question of what audience the copyright owner wants to reach.” The court also found that editing the versions as a form of comment or criticism was a public policy argument that was not appropriately raised in the copyright context.

But, Apple’s technology might not be making a new copy of a song to then censor, rather, it’s merely bleeping or silencing-out a portion, so there is a decent argument that this will not be a copyright issue.  “Moral rights,” which can protect the integrity of (or cursing in) a work, are generally not recognized in the U.S., so the mere act of censoring a work isn’t necessarily copyright infringement.  But, Apple’s technology is similar to the facts of a 1970’s case wherein ABC was sued by the people behind the Monty Python program based on ABC making edits to Monty Python re-broadcasts.  There, the court found that ABC might actually be violating the Lanham Act, which forms federal trademark and unfair competition law.  By editing the episodes, ABC misrepresented the source of the episodes.  That is, by screwing around with the way that Monty Python’s writers intended the episodes to look, ABC damaged Monty Python because viewers might think that the edited, “less good,” episodes originated with Monty Python.  This is similar to a line of cases where Rolex has successfully sued after-market jewelers who add “bling” to Rolex watches.  Rolex argues that they would never add a dial full of diamonds or other tacky embellishments, and when jewelers do so, they damage the Rolex brand because consumers might think that Rolex was the source of the tackiness.

In sum, Apple may not even bring this technology to market, and even if they do, I would imagine that for artists to have their music on iTunes (the patent anticipates use in streaming environment), they will have to agree to allow the use of the technology.  But at the end of the day, this may not be legally actionable anyway.  Artists typically create a “clean” mix of a song.  I wonder if Tipper Gore would have approved?

Apple’s full application may be downloaded HERE.

(Bonus thoughts:  the idea of piecing a song together from multiple audio streams located at different sources is interesting.  The patent application doesn’t just address adding a “beep” in place of a dirty word.  The “clean” music can be seamlessly spliced into the song on-the-fly.  As we’ve recently seen with Kanye tinkering around with edits and mixes of songs from The Life of Pablo after its release, this technology may have some positive creative merit – i.e. custom MP3/audio files depending on what time of day the audio is streamed or downloaded.)

Trademark Presentation

I’ve been meaning to post the slides from my Trademark Law – 2015 Update CLE that I presented at the Orange County Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Committee meeting back in May.

So, here they are in PDF format: Trademarks – OCBA CLE 2015.

I went over the following topics:

1) A Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) proceeding which sought to cancel the registration for Gerber Childrenswear’s “ONESIES” trademark.  Since giving the CLE, the TTAB proceeding has been terminated because the party seeking to cancel the ONESIES registration has withdrawn the petition for cancellation.  Given that the petitioner’s website still uses the “onesies” term/mark, I’m guessing that Gerber has given the petitioner a free license or some other incentive to abandon its efforts to cancel the registration.  Even though I’m a trademark attorney, as a new dad, I admit to using the term “onesie” in a generic sense.  All baby bodysuits are “onesies” to me even though I know it’s a registered trademark and should not be used generically.  I still think Gerber will lose this registration at some point.  It might be many years from now, but ONESIE’s days as a registered trademark seem limited to me.

2) The Supreme Court’s B&B Hardware case, which addressed issue preclusion – i.e. does a TTAB finding of likelihood of confusion preclude a subsequent district court from finding otherwise?  (Answer:  It depends.  If the issues raised in the TTAB proceeding are identical to the issues in the district court litigation such that traditional collateral estoppel rules are triggered, then the TTAB decision can preclude a contrary district court decision.)

3) The Supreme Court’s Hana Financial case, which addressed whether or not “tacking” is a question of fact for a jury or if it is a question of law for the court.  (Answer: it is a factual issue which “falls comfortably within the ken of a jury.”)

4) A federal case in Maryland involving campaign signs.  I’ve blogged about campaign signs and trademarks on several occasions (HERE, HERE), so this one interested me for that reason as well as for the case’s analysis of another Supreme Court case – the Lexmark case with addressed standing in false advertising claims.  In this case, the Hershey chocolate company was upset that Mr. Steve Hershey was using the Hershey’s familiar trade dress – brown background, similar block letter typeface, etc.

hershey

The court found that Mr. Hershey does not have a fair use or First Amendment right to use the Hershey’s trade dress. Given how many local campaign signs I see in Orlando which play on famous trademarks, this case should serve as a warning.

5) Finally, I covered the In re Tam case, which was a case where the Federal Circuit first affirmed a TTAB decision that denied a band’s trademark application for THE SLANTS as being disparaging to those of Asian descent.  The band is made up of members of Asian descent, and they challenged the denial.  Interestingly, after the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal in a majority opinion, the opinion went on in a dissent to question the constitutionality of the Trademark Act’s bar to registration of “disparaging” marks.  Five days after that opinion was issued, the Federal Circuit vacated it and ordered that the case will be heard en banc with new briefing on the constitutionality issue.  Oral argument will be held on October 2, which is a couple of days before my firm will be at the Federal Circuit in D.C. to argue an appeal in a patent case.

 

Taste Infringement?

I used to love the Coke Zero commercials that had the “regular Coke” workers complaining that the Coke Zero creators committed “taste infringement” due to the fact that Coke Zero tastes so much like regular Coke.  Well, as Eric Goldman writes, a pizza restaurant has tried to bring a “taste infringement” claim:

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/10/food-flavor-cant-be-trademarked-even-if-the-baked-ziti-is-delicious-ny-pizzeria-v-syal-forbes-cross-post.htm

 

 

Don’t Forget Domain Names When Purchasing a Sports Team

This one is kind of funny.  The Orlando Predators, which is an Arena Football team, was recently sold.  Apparently the sale did not include the domain name “orlandopredators.com” because the Orlando Sentinel is reporting that the domain is now redirecting to…drumroll…:

predators1

 

Yep – the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s website for “predators.”  Well-played former owner, well-played.

See article HERE.

As the article states, an ICANN UDRP proceeding has been initiated.  I didn’t see it on WIPO’s or NAF’s websites this morning, but I wonder if the UDRP proceeding will even be successful.  If the sale contracts did not include the domain name, the only way that a UDRP proceeding would result in transferring the domain is if the UDRP Panel determines that the current owner registered AND used the domain in bad faith.  My guess is that the domain was registered prior to the sale for the purpose of promoting the Orlando Predators football team.  No bad faith there.  And, while it was used to promote the team, there’s probably no bad faith there, either.

So, will the act of redirecting the domain name to a website that really does contain information about Orland0-area predators be considered bad faith?  The UDRP is not designed to handle trademark infringement, just cybersquatting.  So, to the extent that the prior owner did not sell the domain and was not engaged in bad faith when he registered and used it, then the UDRP may be powerless, and this will become either a trademark infringement lawsuit or a contractual issue depending on the sale documents.  For now, redirecting to the FDLE Sexual Predators site seems like a safe move.  (Of course, there’s an argument that the redirection to a sexual predator site “dilutes” the Predators brand via tarnishment theories, but I doubt the Orlando Predators brand has attained the level of fame necessary for a federal dilution claim.  Maybe a state dilution claim though.)

This could be a very interesting proceeding, presuming it isn’t worked out between the parties.

For now, go to http://www.myorlandopredators.com for info on the football team (and not to create your own database of Orlando-area sexual predators).

predators2

The Party Crashing Trademark Attorneys

As blogged HERE and HERE, Clown Shoes Beer changed the name of its Vampire Slayer beer due to a trademark dispute.  Rather than going gentle into the good beer-fueled night, Clown Shoes raged on and mocked the dispute by writing an article about the issue and why they handled it the way they did.  (The article is no longer on the Clown Shoes website, but an archive is HERE.) To recap, Clown Shoes handled the issue by changing the name of the beer to Undead Party Crasher (which is a sly comment on the fact that Clown Shoes’ original Vampire Slayer beer was supposed to be a celebration of Clown Shoes’ second anniversary).  Oh, and they also mocked my profession in a pretty hilarious way. So, my final update on this issue is simply this:  My local Total Wine has just about cleared its inventory of Vampire Slayer, and they have the new Undead Party Crasher in stock.  Of course, I bought a bunch for my colleagues. While I applaud the fun that Clown Shoes had with this issue, I have to disagree with Clown Shoes by answering the question “do we need the undead and trademark attorneys” with a resounding, “YES!” (as opposed to “No, Die Monsters, Die”)

undead-closeup
“Die, monsters, die!”

 

undead-pano
Panorama shot. Oooooh. Fancy.

undead-slayer

Medical Marijuana – The Wild, Wild, East(coast)

Entrepreneurs are flooding Florida as the state’s citizens prepare to vote on legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes this November. The initiative is on the ballot, and signs are pointing toward enough support to pass the amendment to the Florida Constitution.

As with any new industry, the rush to make a buck has been swift and fierce. Medical marijuana schools are being advertised, seminars are being held at hotels, and law firms are ramping up to guide entrepreneurs through the state regulations. Of course, there are no state regulations yet, but the early bird gets the weed, and it makes sense to start consulting with your attorney of choice regarding what may happen in early 2015.

Clearly, medical marijuana is going to be a “Florida IP Trend” if it isn’t already.

But, the majority of intellectual property practice is based on federal law – the Lanham Act, the Copyright Act, and the Patent Act all arise out of either the Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution (copyrights and patents) or the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (granting the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, including interstate trademark use).

As you may have heard, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, and trademark applications before the United States Patent and Trademark Office are being routinely rejected with essentially the same boilerplate language:

SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – NOT IN LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used in connection with the goods and/or services identified in the application, is not in lawful use in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127.

To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful.  Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce'”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Scis., Inc., 474 F.3d 626, 630, 81 USPQ2d 1592, 1595 (9th Cir. 2007).  Thus, any goods or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘”use in commerce,” means a “lawful use in commerce,” and [that the sale or] the shipment of goods in violation of [a] federal statute . . . may not be recognized as the basis for establishing trademark rights'” (quoting Clorox Co. v. Armour-Dial, Inc., 214 USPQ 850, 851 (TTAB 1982))); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana-based preparations.  21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]”).  In addition, the CSA makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia, i.e., “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under [the CSA].”  21 U.S.C. §863.

In the present case, the application identifies applicant’s goods and/or services as follows: “Providing a web site that features informal instruction on the cultivation of medical marijuana.”

The evidence submitted with applicant’s response to the previous Office action plainly indicates that applicant’s identified services include activities that are prohibited by the CSA, namely, instruction on how to grow, cultivate, harvest and produce marijuana.

Because these goods and/or services are prohibited by the CSA, the applied-for mark, as used in connection with such goods and/or services, is not in lawful use in commerce.

 

There are currently 327 applications and/or registrations in the USPTO’s database which contain the word “marijuana” in the description of goods or services.  Of those 327, only 45 are (or were) actually registered.  While many of those 327 applications were rejected with language similar to that cited above, the few that squeaked by are either anomalies and/or the work of skilled trademark practitioners who know how to carefully craft a description of services.  (To be fair, many of the ones that have not been registered were allowed to be registered, but the applicants did not follow up with certain filing requirements, such as specimens of use.)

As an example of the division between allowable and not allowable, consider that a popular website located at http://www.leafly.com received a registration for LEAFLY for use with, among other things:

“Providing consumer information in the field of medical marijuana dispensary inventories and locations; providing links to web sites of others featuring consumer information on medical marijuana inventories and locations; providing a web site featuring the ratings, reviews and recommendations on products and services for commercial purposes posted by users; providing consumer information regarding medical marijuana dispensaries, inventories and locations”

and

“Providing health information in the field of medical marijuana, and regarding indications and effects of particular cannabis strains, and regarding medical marijuana dispensaries, inventories and locations”

Yet, an application for MARY N’ JANE for use with “Providing a web site that features informal instruction on the cultivation of medical marijuana” was rejected per the above language.  The difference is apparently that using the trademark in connection with marijuana cultivation instruction is not ok, but using the mark for general information about marijuana dispensaries is ok.  This logic is further supported by questions that USPTO Examining Attorneys are routinely asking of applicants with marijuana-based goods or services, namely:

Do the applicant’s classes, seminars, and/or workshops involve the provision of, instruction on how to grow, and/or instruction on how to obtain marijuana, marijuana-based preparations, or marijuana extracts or derivatives?

Are the applicant’s services lawful pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act?

If the answer to the first question is Yes, no registration for you.

So, what is the Florida-based medical marijuana entrepreneur to do?  State trademark registrations are an option, but Florida does not recognize “intent to use” applications like the USPTO does.  This means that even if you are planning to open a dispensary, nursery, or other marijuana-related establishment once the regulations are drafted and licenses are issued, you cannot apply for the state trademark registration now because you cannot yet legally run a medical marijuana facility in Florida.  The flood of state applications that will occur on Day 1 will be astounding, and anyone who has used Florida’s state registration system knows that this impending flood just might break the system.

Another interesting aspect of medical marijuana in Florida is that just last year our lawmakers passed the so-called Bong Ban Bill, making it illegal to sell virtually anything that can be used to smoke marijuana…but only if the seller intended for the item to be used in violation of the drug paraphernalia laws.  So, if you do not intend for people to use your hand-crafted glass pipe to smoke illegal substances, presumably you do not violate the law.  (As with everything on this blog, the preceding is not legal advice.  If you intend to sell pipes, you should consult an attorney.)  Once Amendment 2 passes and medical marijuana is legalized in Florida, I’m guessing that the “Bong Ban” will need some renovation.

 

 

 

UPDATE 2: “College Football Playoff” trademark application loses Coach’s Challenge

We’ve blogged about the BCS’s intent to register the words “COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF” for the BCS college football playoff HERE and HERE.

It doesn’t take a trademark attorney to figure out that the words COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF are descriptive of a “college football playoff,” which the BCS describes as the following services: “Entertainment services in the nature of television and radio sports programs featuring college football games, exhibitions and tournaments; entertainment services, namely, organizing and staging college football games, exhibitions and tournaments; and providing entertainment, information, news and programming, polls, scores, standings, statistics, and history and background, all in the field of the sport of football, via the internet.”

The USPTO agreed, and refused to register the trademark.  As explained in the previous posts, trademarks that are “merely descriptive” of the goods or services are not registrable without a showing of acquired distinctiveness (or, secondary meaning).  It’s pretty hard to show that your trademark as acquired distinctiveness when it’s not even in use yet.  Nonetheless, the BCS threw out the red flag to challenge the refusal, but, on February 6, 2014, the USPTO said that the play on the field stands.

Well, that’s not entirely accurate, the USPTO is now saying that the mark is just flat out generic.  Generic terms can never be registered. Wilson cannot obtain a registration for FOOTBALL for footballs…  And, now, the BCS cannot receive a registration for COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF no matter how much acquired distinctiveness it claims to have.  So, the BCS actually lost yards on the play.

From the USPTO’s most- recent Office Action:

Registration was initially refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) because the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s services.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1).  Applicant was also advised that the mark appears to be generic as well.  In response, applicant amended the application to add a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).  15 U.S.C. §1052(f).

Initially applicant was advised that the mark might be generic for only one of applicant’s services.  However upon further review, registration is now refused because the applied-for mark is generic for all of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a)(ii).  Thus, applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) is insufficient to overcome the refusal because no amount of purported proof that a generic term has acquired secondary meaning can transform that term into a registrable trademark or service mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); In re Bongrain Int’l (Am.) Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 1317 n.4, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1728 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1990); H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’nof Fire ChiefsInc., 782 F.2d 987, 989, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986); TMEP §1212.02(i).

Ouch.  I’d say the BCS needs to sit out for a “concussion assessment” over that one.

The BCS isn’t giving up so easily.  The strategy now appears to be based on registering the exciting logo below:

BCS CFP logo

Yeah, that “exciting” bit was sarcasm.

Actually, there has been an application pending for a different form of that logo since last year.  Not surprisingly, the USPTO is requiring the BCS to “disclaim” the generic wording, so the BCS will essentially be left with the beautiful black and gold logo as a registration, although I anticipate lots of over-reaching lawsuits when retailers begin using the term “College Football Playoff” in advertisements for TV’s, French onion dip, and recliners.

On a side-note, logos must be described in order to assist with searching for conflicting logos, so the USPTO will assign various tags to describe the logo.  Hilariously, the design code for the above logo is: “21.03.18 – Australian footballs; Rugby balls; Footballs; Elliptical shaped balls.”

Come on, Man!  This is America.  Wouldn’t “American football” have been enough?  Why bring rugby into this?

Finally, interested in what  the BCS wants to sell you with that logo on it?

IC 006. US 002 012 013 014 023 025 050. G & S: Metal key chains

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Video game software; digital media, namely, pre-recorded DVDs, downloadable audio and video recordings, and CDs featuring college football games, exhibitions and tournaments, and promoting the sport of football; downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for providing entertainment, information, news and programming, polls, scores, standings, statistics, and history and background, all in the field of the sport of football

IC 014. US 002 027 028 050. G & S: Jewelry, watches, pendants, rings, medallions, collectible coins

IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Printed publications in the form of game programs, media guides and commemorative books in the field of sports and entertainment; bumper stickers, decals and paper pennants

IC 018. US 001 002 003 022 041. G & S: Wallets, billfolds

IC 020. US 002 013 022 025 032 050. G & S: Plastic novelty license plates; vinyl flags

IC 021. US 002 013 023 029 030 033 040 050. G & S: Mugs and beverage glassware

IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing, namely, t-shirts, sweat shirts, sweat pants, caps, hats, pullovers, jerseys, and jackets, visors, shorts, socks, sweatbands, scarves, and sweaters

IC 027. US 019 020 037 042 050. G & S: Rugs

IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Toy novelty items, namely, foam fingers and hands; sports equipment, namely, footballs and kicking tees; collectible toys, namely, full-sized replica football helmets and mini collector football helmets, collectible full-sized replica footballs

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services in the nature of television and radio sports programs featuring college football games, exhibitions and tournaments; entertainment services, namely, organizing and staging college football games, exhibitions and tournaments; and providing entertainment, information, news and programming, polls, scores, standings, statistics, and history and background, all in the field of the sport of football, via the internet