How Nordstrom's And The USPTO Have Destroyed One Small Business
from the good-going dept
Jim Harper has the story of how the combination of a screwup at the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and a bunch of overly aggressive lawyers at Nordstrom's have made life incredibly difficult for a small business that has done everything right. That business, an "organic" lifestyle clothing company, filed for a trademark on those clothes using their company name: Beckons. After this small business filed for the trademark, but before that information was published, the big department store Nordstrom's filed for a trademark on the word "Beckon" for women's clothing. This happens at times, but the small company was there first, and the proper response from the USPTO is to reject the latter registration.That didn't happen.
The USPTO flat-out screwed up and approved Nordstrom's application for publication (effectively moving the process forward). That meant that the small Beckons company had to spend thousands of dollars opposing Nordstrom's trademark registration. Thousands of dollars they shouldn't have had to spend if the USPTO had done its job right in the first place. Now, again, at this point, the facts are pretty straightforward, and even though the USPTO screwed up initially, the next step should be that the USPTO admits its mistake and everything moves on again.
But that's when Nordstrom's lawyers apparently got involved. Rather than recognizing the obvious truth (they have no claim on the mark Beckon and should give it up), they went into attack mode -- and tried to have the original Beckons trademark canceled, arguing that it really only was used for "yoga clothing" as opposed to a wider array of apparel. The case went to the appeals board -- meaning more legal costs for the small company. It was at this point, that the USPTO actually realized their original mistake, transferred Nordstrom's trademark app back to the original approver -- where it was rejected as being too similar to the Beckons clothing line. Again, at this point, despite the massive legal costs and mistakes and overly aggressive lawyers, you'd hope the matter would be done with.
No such luck.
Nordstrom's lawyers filed another complaint against the original Beckons trademark, claiming that they had abandoned their rights to the mark, once again sending everything to the Appeals Board (more legal bills!) only to have the filing dismissed, after it was realized that Nordstorm's original request to cancel the Beckons trademark was still out. And, in fact, that attempt to cancel the trademark is still active, but is in a long queue of cases to hit the Appeals Board -- meaning that the small company behind Beckons still has plenty more to spend on legal bills, and plenty of uncertainty concerning the simple trademark they filed for a few years ago.
While we often rail against problems with patent and copyright law, the purpose behind trademark law is entirely different It's a consumer or fraud protection law -- designed to make sure consumers aren't tricked into believing one product is associated with another company. Yes, it's all too often abused, but the small clothing company behind Beckons was doing exactly the right thing... and a mistake and some aggressive lawyering seem to have left them in a bad spot. The USPTO should fix things and Nordstrom's should drop its ridiculous vindictive legal attack against the much smaller company.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beckons, trademarks, uspto
Companies: beckons, nordstroms
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe we need a system where loser pays winner equal to the losers legal fees. In this case Nordstrom should lose and hand over a big chunk of cash.
In the case in the comments below (the gal with the IT Bags), if she loses she's not out much as she appears to be self represented.
This would make people more afraid of the courts and help keep people from just getting outspent, as a large legal team represents a large liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it should only apply to the party that initiated the lawsuit.
It's just an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous
Why only until then. Just stop or don't shop there at all, FOREVER. Overpriced douchebags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close to Home
She was given initial approval for the registration.
But then TJ Maxx applied for "The New IT Bag" a couple of weeks later.
When they were denied because of her pending registration, they hired a lawyer to (in compliance with USPTO rules) to protest the final approval of her mark.
This is a single woman, who designed and produced a fashionable and innovative IT bag. She doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer to fight TJ Maxx, and has spent a great deal of her time and money to fight them herself.
It's pending...
Plug:
http://www.dreamitwear.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, sadly, this would likely be impractical as well. Make that doubly so by the already exorbitant legal bills created by the USPTO's blunder.
In other words, the USPTO is likely safe from the ramifications of their mistake due to the magnitude of their error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprising to see this story here.......
I think these should sue USPTO and that company and recover all the losses due to their incompetence.
Some tangential ideas. Couldn't they have abandoned this trade mark and put their energy into bettering their product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surprising to see this story here.......
I've been quite clear that trademarks make perfect sense not as property, but as consumer fraud prevention. I have no problem with them in that sense. To say I've suggested otherwise is not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another example ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exchange your shoes
Nordstrom orginally started selling shoes and they are famous for their no-hassle exchange policy on shoes, http://about.nordstrom.com/help/our-policies/returns-exchanges.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should they drop it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outrageous
Reminds me of the Nissan.com lawsuits (Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer) which started in 99 or maybe 2000.
Both that case and this one are essentially about a much larger corporation with deeper pockets bullying smaller companies into bending to their will by using the legal system to their advantage. File suit, injunctions, motions, etc. until the smaller business runs out of money, patience and/or time.
All quite legal but ethically suspect. Hmm.. an Ethical Attorney. Sounds like an oxymoron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they are not just distrusted, they are HATED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More importantly, the lawyer is being PAID by specific people withing Nordstroms, so if we follow the money, we end up boycotting Nordstroms anyway, as if we were going to shop there --
BUT the negative publicity against Nrodstrums ... priceless!
> Behind every one of these examples of corporate
> behavior, there are individual PEOPLE who are
> making decisions. You can rail all day about
> Nordstroms, but I think the individuals -- our
> fellow citizens, who are perpetrating this kind
> of activity need to be called out by name. Don't
> let the people who do this hide behind the mask
> of a corporate nameplate. In this case, it is
> Mr. WILLIAM O. FERRON, who is the attorney
> representing Nordstroms. This is Mr. Ferron's
> handiwork. Here is his email and phone number
> in Seattle. BillF@SeedIP.com (206)622-4900
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still, Nordstrom needs to be slapped down where it hurts: The wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still, Nordstrom needs to be slapped down where it hurts: The wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bye bye another company
well Nord is one company I used to use, but no longer. I hate this kind of behaviour from ANY company, and I've been mentioning their actions to as many people as I can, and posting links to techdirt all over the place, so now thousands if not TENS of thousands of people will probably end up hating Nord too. You reap what you sow Nordstrom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BIG opportunity....
just like those injury lawyer firms....they go after the big company for punitive damages (personally i'd say go for around 100x whatever the original costs were as a minimum).
tv advert - have you been screwed around by one of america's corporations?
Been screwed by a corporate bitch?....You could get rich!! (c) me 2009....hehehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just finished reading A Tale of Two Cities, and I see the mob that freed Darnay with tears the night before the next day they called for his head is no longer in 18th century France, but sitting before their respective computers.
My only question is, behind what cause would the Tech Dirt mob rally if this poor woman had a software patent that should have been issued except for Nordstrom's intervention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have never suggested that the USPTO should disregard the law.
I don't understand why you would lie, but if you think you're proving a point, all you've shown is that you're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To those who want to focus on punishing Nordstroms:
I certainly understand wanting to punish Nordstroms. Boycott away if you like, but I doubt you will get enough people to join you such that they would even notice. The lawyer, on the other hand is the one who likely advised them to take this course of action in the first place. He's the one who personally stands to gain from it. He's the one who's actually making it happen, once he gets the go-ahead on his idea from the Nordstrom executives. He's also the guy who will likely advise his next client to do the same thing, if it was profitable for him this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad PR
In the hopes that reps from Nordstrom read this, I'd like to make it known that this information will give me pause the next time I think about entering a Nordstrom or visit the website. I don't like to support companies that make mean jack-asses of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stand up
It isn't easy to represent yourself. You have to spend a lot of time researching and presenting correct documentation, but I think in the long run, the obvious and simple truth should come out.
And, the USPTO needs to reassess how and why they allow these unwarranted oppositions to go so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spread the word
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Registered Trademark
Look, I'm not necessarily against some "hip" advertising campaigns, but am I prohibited from using this phrase? It's certainly not tantamount to calling my business "MacDonald's Hamburgers", is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
punitive damages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good info here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]