Trademark For 'Square Donuts' At Heart Of Trademark Dispute Despite It Being Entirely Descriptive
from the hurts-donut dept
One of the rules that is supposed to keep trademark law from creating language-lock insanity is the prescription against trademarking purely descriptive terms. That's why you get a trademark on Coca-Cola and Pepsi, but not on "soda." It's why "computer" is not a valid trademark term. Were this not the case, companies could simply lock up the language of their marketplaces, restricting terms not to the benefit of the consumer, but purely as a monopolizing strategy.
And, yet, this doesn't always play out in practice. For instance, there is currently a dispute between a company called Square Donuts, that sells square donuts, and a convenience store chain out of Indiana that also sells square-shaped donuts.
Charles Meyer, who represents Richard A. Comer Jr. and his business Square Donuts Inc., said he disagrees with claims by Family Express convenience stores that the Valparaiso-based chain is not infringing on the trademarked name of Square Donuts, which was established as a family-owned business in Terre Haute in the 1960s and now has nine locations in Indiana.Mr. Meyer misses the point entirely in this response. The establishment of the name of a business, while important, does not in and of itself route around the requirement in trademark law that a mark not be purely descriptive. There are indeed provisions in the law allowing for marks that have taken on a secondary meaning in the marketplace, even if descriptive, but it's difficult to understand how Square Donuts Inc. would qualify. The company sells donuts in the shape of a square and called itself Square Donuts. There's no secondary meaning implied or intended. This didn't keep Square Donuts Inc. from firing off a cease and desist letter to Family Express all the way back in 2006, causing the latter company to eventually look to the courts to declare that it was not infringing in its use.
"It's a well-established name, and we want to protect that," Meyer told the Tribune-Star on Monday.
It was in January 2006 that Comer's family-owned business sent a cease and desist letter to Family Express claiming trademark rights for the "square donuts" name. Family Express claims that it responded about two weeks later explaining that no infringement existed for its descriptive.And then, earlier this year, the USPTO declined Family Express' trademark application for "square donuts", not because of its descriptive nature, but because it had already granted a similar mark to Square Donuts Inc. As per usual, the ultimate fault for this silliness can be laid at the feet of the USPTO. I'm trying to think of a better example of how the trademark office just isn't paying any attention than the fact that it granted a trademark for "square donuts", a combination of an adjective and a noun, likely the purest example of describing something in the English language.
In January 2012, the Terre Haute business obtained an Indiana State trademark registration for "Square Donuts Inc.," and received a federal trademark registration in May 2013. The "word marks" registered include not only the "Square Donuts" words, but also the well-known design of a square with a hole in the middle and a bite taken out of the right side.
So way to go, guys. If you had just bothered to keep to the rules of trademark law and its purpose, we wouldn't have to read about to companies bickering over square donuts. Oh well...
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
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Easy Fix
The new company can just rebrand itself as, wait for it...Donuts Squared
(techdirt doesn't support the sup tag apparently)
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The surfeit of lawyers have to be able to grow fat bank accounts somehow, and the USPTO is playing its part in helping them to do that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are indeed provisions in the law allowing for marks that have taken on a secondary meaning in the marketplace, even if descriptive, but it's difficult to understand how Square Donuts Inc. would qualify. The company sells donuts in the shape of a square and called itself Square Donuts. There's no secondary meaning implied or intended.
Your cite to Wikipedia is a start, though it's clear you didn't understand what you read. One doesn't imply or intend secondary meaning. One acquires it through use. Here, the service mark (it's not a trademark, which you would know if you did 10 seconds of research) has been in use since 1968. Over those years, people have come to associate "square donuts" with a particular source. That acquired distinctiveness was then proved to the USPTO, and hence the federal registration.
This is basic, basic stuff. First day trademark law, 101, basic stuff.
As per usual, the ultimate fault for this silliness can be laid at the feet of the USPTO. I'm trying to think of a better example of how the trademark office just isn't paying any attention than the fact that it granted a trademark for "square donuts", a combination of an adjective and a noun, likely the purest example of describing something in the English language.
Yes, it was initially purely descriptive. The question is whether it acquired secondary meaning. The USPTO obviously was convinced it did. Unless you can show they were wrong, which given your epic cluelessness I don't think you can, then you haven't shown how "the trademark office just isn't paying any attention." The only one not paying attention is you. Yet you're apparently too dumb to know how dumb you are.
Keep up the great work, Techdirt! Timmy's a winner!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By secondary meaning, they are referring to "Jell-O" becoming a common term for flavored gelatin. The meaning of the term in question ws not acquired, it was descriptive from the start.
By your reasoning, Uber should be able to trademark "Black Car" and we would have to wipe out a color selection from every auto manufacturer's lineup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imaginary Proprety
Excelsior!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Fix
Donuts Squared
(techdirt doesn't support the sup tag apparently)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The funny thing, really, is that you don't see more places selling square donuts, even decades after this business was founded. If they're not that big of an innovation, you'd think they'd be more widespread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the classes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]